Hi Bastian, I think much of what you are asking here is already answered in my reply to Ben's followup.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:33:28PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 06:15:57PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 03:35:21PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 06:03:24PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > > > A. Multi-Arch: foreign is a lie > > > All the examples of yours will immediatelly fail to build anything with > > > it. So what harm is done? > > This is practically untrue. Even with current unstable packages, the > > sparc (32) bootstrap still succeeds. > > I don't understand what succeeds. Because missing asm/* headers pretty > much makes it impossible to use anything from linux/*. So the bootstrap > either have it's own headers or it will bail out if it tries to include > any kernel interface. > > Can you please share the log for it? You may find all the logs at https://jenkins.debian.net/view/rebootstrap. Indeed, I missed the fact that sparc is being patched in. And with patching it in, the complete sparc bootstrap is still successful at this time. So yeah, sparc immediately fails, but the main reason for that is linux and not some other component. I'm not gonna argue about sparc in particular. I'll just keep it alive in rebootstrap as long as it is low effort. Once actual porting work becomes necessary, I'll poke John Paul Adrian Glaubitz and if nothing happens, discard sparc from my bootstrapping efforts. So these architectures only served as examples here. mipsel and armel look like they could be the next sparc. > > Fair enough. Please add arc, cksy, mipsr6el, sh3, sparc, and > > musl-linux-any. Thanks in advance. > > Please make proper requests that are actionable. I think you accurately captured the point of the request: It is not actionable. The architectures referenced are work in progress to different extents. You'll find more detail in my other mail. Helmut
