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

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

> On Mon, 2024-10-28 at 15:51 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> 
> > You talk about "applications ... being written". Well, two days ago I 
> > mentioned several groups of applications: (1) core packages that 
> > accept alignment patches, (2) packages whose developers shouldn't 
> > worry about small systems anyway, and (3) packags I am concerned about 
> > i.e. the ones actually required by Debian/m68k users (which will 
> > presumably lead to disto bug reports, if they didn't already -- hence 
> > my question about bug reports which remains unanswered).
> 
> As I said before, it's about (transitive) build dependencies and the 
> fact that more and more packages are being rewritten in Rust.
> 
> Here is the current top of the list of packages that won't build on m68k 
> because of the 2-byte alignment issue:
> 
>    2814 cargo:m68k
>     900 ghc:m68k
>     261 gccgo-14:m68k
>     241 libqt5core5a:m68k
>     181 architecture-is-64-bit:m68k
>     117 libglib2.0-0:m68k
>      81 libcompiler-libs-ocaml-dev-0a396:m68k
>      81 golang-go:m68k
>      71 wx3.2-headers:m68k
>      57 qt6-base-dev:m68k
>      57 python3:m68k
>      46 libamd2:m68k
> 
> Are you going to fix these for me?
> 

Are you the only user?

Seriously though, thanks for providing data. Now, if you would link to the 
upstream refusals for CPython and golang, I'll do what I can to help.