Re: Plan needed for switching m68k to 32-bit alignment

On Sun, 2024-10-27 at 00:04 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > That seems to imply that someone requires that those packages are ported.
> 
> Yes, we do. Rust especially is killing the entire FOSS ecosystem.

Could we leave out politics out of this discussion, please?

> These all are conditio sine qua nōn when it comes to continuing
> Linux/m68k, as a whole.

Exactly.

> > Absent the right conditions, perhaps it is best focus limited porter and
> > developer effort on patching only those packages that are really required.
> 
> I tried my hand at Qt5. About 20 man-hours in I essentially gave up,
> and that was without even getting to something I could put to a
> compile and runtime test.

Yep, that's exactly my experience as well while building with 32-bit alignment
just made it work.

> “Natural” alignment of data types has essentially become a requirement
> these days, and m68k is the only true outlyer (i386 could in theory, but
> the Unix psABI designers were sensible enough to not do it).

Agreed.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913