Re: gcc-3.1 packaging - feedback from ports wanted
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 00:13, Matthias Klose wrote: > Philip Blundell writes: > > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:04, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > - arm: missing(?) arm-patches > > > > I sent the two patches we had in 3.0 to the gcc mailing lists. Maybe > > there's still a chance that they might be included in the actual > > release. If not, it's no big deal. > > ok (btw, I see only one on gcc-patches). Oh yeah. If you're interested, the other was http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2002-04/msg00412.html. > checked with the gcc-snapshot results on arm. it's the same, so likely > an upstream issue. Yes, looks like it might be a case of needing the "small patch" mentioned in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00084.html. I'll try to get this checked in upstream. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unidentified subject!
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
New packages, based on 020406 can be found at http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc - Ada packaging done (see below, asking Samuel for feedback) - Arm patches re-added What about woody? s390 wants to have it for woody, correct? Not sure about the other architectures. On i386, I have gcc-3.1 installed (instead of gcc-3.0), the machine did reboot, all seems to work for four days. We could upload gcc-3.1 to unstable (when it's released, not before) and then look how it goes. But then how to make updated gcc-3.0 packages for woody? For m68k, gcc-3.1 doesn't work yet, and for sparc64, I didn't test. If adding g++-3.1 to woody, we should make a note, that no package destined for woody should use g++-3.1 (because of the new libstdc++4). Ada: - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all? - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or should it be gnat-3.1? - Do we want to have a versioned Ada package? If yes, the existing Ada compiler has to be repackaged. - If we have versioned names, then we will need to provide the correct gnatbind executable for the build process. Currently I only tested with gnat-3.14. - The installation of gnat goes wrong. I had to explicitely call the add-install.common target. - Sam, please could you update the relink script from gnat-3.14 for gnat-3.15? Currently all tools are linked statically. - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha. Anyone else for other architectures? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
On 6/04, Matthias Klose wrote: | Ada: | | - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all? Sure. | - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or | should it be gnat-3.1? Mmm, at least until we are sure that this version of GNAT is as stable as the previous one, I would prefer a totally different name (the official release number will be GNAT 5.0 anyway). What about gcc-gnat-? Or gcc-gnat-3.1? If everything gets OK, no problem for moving to your package. | - Do we want to have a versioned Ada package? If yes, the existing | Ada compiler has to be repackaged. | | - If we have versioned names, then we will need to provide the correct | gnatbind executable for the build process. Currently I only tested | with gnat-3.14. | | - The installation of gnat goes wrong. I had to explicitely call | the add-install.common target. | | - Sam, please could you update the relink script from gnat-3.14 | for gnat-3.15? Currently all tools are linked statically. Unfortunately, I am fully booked for next week, then I leave for a 3 weeks vacation, then two crazy weeks and again one week of vacation. As a consequence, I will be totally unable to work on GNAT and unresponsive for the next 7 weeks at least. | - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha. | Anyone else for other architectures? Cross compilation needed, not difficult, only tedious. Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 20:17, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > | - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha. > | Anyone else for other architectures? > > Cross compilation needed, not difficult, only tedious. Is there a recipe somewhere for bringing up GNAT using a cross compiler? I'm happy to do the work to create ARM packages, but I know nothing at all about programming in Ada. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
Samuel Tardieu writes: > | - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all? > > Sure. Then I add you to the maintainers list and you subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or > | should it be gnat-3.1? > > Mmm, at least until we are sure that this version of GNAT is as stable as > the previous one, I would prefer a totally different name (the official > release number will be GNAT 5.0 anyway). > > What about gcc-gnat-? No. this will be from the gcc-3.1 release. > Or gcc-gnat-3.1? If everything gets OK, no > problem for moving to your package. Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1? And how about naming the binaries? Currently the are called -3.15. _But_ the build process expects that the name gnatbind is available? Is there a small package with Ada source packaged for Debian, which can be used as a test case? Maybe not hello-world, but something with more than one module. > | - Do we want to have a versioned Ada package? If yes, the existing > | Ada compiler has to be repackaged. > | > | - If we have versioned names, then we will need to provide the correct > | gnatbind executable for the build process. Currently I only tested > | with gnat-3.14. > | > | - The installation of gnat goes wrong. I had to explicitely call > | the add-install.common target. > | > | - Sam, please could you update the relink script from gnat-3.14 > | for gnat-3.15? Currently all tools are linked statically. > > Unfortunately, I am fully booked for next week, then I leave for a 3 weeks > vacation, then two crazy weeks and again one week of vacation. As a > consequence, I will be totally unable to work on GNAT and unresponsive > for the next 7 weeks at least. well, it works, but uses more space. so it's not urgent. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:10, Matthias Klose wrote: > What about woody? s390 wants to have it for woody, correct? Yes, that would be great, but probably unrealistic. I am currently adapting the java patch for s390, since it's still not upstream available and your package doesn't work without it. One showstopper for 3.1 on s390 in Debian is currently the binutils version as I figured out recently. Every binutils version greater than 2.11.92.0.12.3 used together with 3.1 produces broken code on s390. Btw., why are these newer binutils versions prerequisite for 3.1? > Ada: > > - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha. > Anyone else for other architectures? I bootstrapped it once on s390, but without luck because of my limited knowledge of ADA needed for compiler debugging. Maybe I'll give it a second try. Gerhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:26:05 +0200 From: Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:21, Philip Blundell wrote: > On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 20:17, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > > | - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha. > > | Anyone else for other architectures? > > > > Cross compilation needed, not difficult, only tedious. > > Is there a recipe somewhere for bringing up GNAT using a cross compiler? > I'm happy to do the work to create ARM packages, but I know nothing at > all about programming in Ada. There is some documentation at http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html Gerhard --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
On 6/04, Matthias Klose wrote: | Then I add you to the maintainers list and you subscribe to | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's do that when I become available again (in 7 weeks). | > Or gcc-gnat-3.1? If everything gets OK, no | > problem for moving to your package. | | Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1? And how about naming the | binaries? Currently the are called -3.15. _But_ the build | process expects that the name gnatbind is available? Not GNAT 3.15, because I do not want the new GNAT to override the existing package that I maintain (not because I maintain them, but because GNAT 3.14p has succesfully passed Ada Core Technologies proprietary test suite, which is not the case for the GNAT in the GCC tree at this time). You can of course call the tools by their real names without the -3.15 suffix, just make the binary packages conflict with and provide "gnat". | Is there a small package with Ada source packaged for Debian, which | can be used as a test case? Maybe not hello-world, but something with | more than one module. Not small, but libgtkada1 and gvd (the latter depends on the former) do constitue a good test :) Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
> Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1? According to www.gnat.com, ACT are currently shipping GNATpro 3.15. This is surely a different version to what will ship with gcc 3.1 (in fact, I think it's still based on gcc 2.8), so I think gnat-3.15 would be confusing. -M- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
Matthew Woodcraft writes: > > Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1? > > According to www.gnat.com, ACT are currently shipping GNATpro 3.15. > This is surely a different version to what will ship with gcc 3.1 (in > fact, I think it's still based on gcc 2.8), so I think gnat-3.15 would > be confusing. which name is not confusing? ;-) it seems, that each time a new frontend is swallowed by gcc, it get's a new version number. Even g77 now has the upstream version number (was 0.5.25 in gcc-2.95.4 and 0.5.26 in gcc-3.0.4). but gnatbind says: GNATBIND 5.00w (20010924) Copyright 1995-2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Usage: gnatbind-3 switches lfile confused ... gcc-3.1 gnatgcc-3.1 gnat-5.0 ??? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
* Gerhard Tonn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:10, Matthias Klose wrote: > One showstopper for 3.1 on s390 in Debian is currently the binutils version > as I figured out recently. Every binutils version greater than 2.11.92.0.12.3 > used together with 3.1 produces broken code on s390. Is it known why? Is there a patch for the newer binutils. > Btw., why are these newer binutils versions prerequisite for 3.1? I guess it would be much better to fix the binutils than be forced to run with older ones! Dave Have a happy GNU millennium! -- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert| Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM, SPARC and HP-PA | In Hex / \ _|_ http://www.treblig.org |___/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
