Re: glibc regression on alpha with 2.34+

On 12.12.22 09:17, Michael Cree wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 08:56:40AM +0100, Frank Scheiner wrote:
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>> On 12.12.22 08:27, Michael Cree wrote:
>>> With the usrmerge uploads now depending on a recent libc version Alpha
>>> is now dead in the water.  Nothing can be built.  Thus we have to fix
>>> glibc to continue building.
>>>
>>> I am not prepared to fix ev4 issues so if no one else is prepared to
>>> fix them then without a architecture baseline raise this is the end
>>> of Alpha on Debian Ports.
>>
>> I'm not sure I fully understand the issue here:
>>
>> See, glibc used to work for alpha up until 2.33 as I read. Then a change
>> broke it for alpha with 2.34. Does the respective glibc maintainer for
>> alpha (Richard Henderson according to [1]) really have no interest in
>> fixing it?
>
> RTH hasn't had working Alpha hardware for quite some time.
>
> One of the glibc maintainers did have access to one of my Alphas
> until last year but unfortunately the hosting site is no longer
> prepared to host it so I can no longer make that Alpha available
> to developers.

Thanks for clarifying.

> So with that glibc Alpha support is rotting fast.
>
> Many of the other ports (e.g. armel, armhf, i386) have had
> architecture baseline increases in the last few years, and none
> support hardware anywhere near as old as alpha ev4.
>
> I am no longer personally prepared to support Alpha unless
> the architecture baseline increase is done.  I have no
> ev4/ev45 hardware and no longer have any interest in supporting
> them.

Yeah, I figured that already from your first email today.

In your email to Adrian you write about BWX capable processors as new
baseline. So EV56 instead of EV67?

Cheers,
Frank