Re: Bug#954031: [Sbcl-devel] Bug#954031: sbcl: Please allow building with clisp on currently unsupported architectures
Sébastien Villemot <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.ports.hppa,gmane.linux.debian.ports.alpha,gmane.linux.debian.ports.mips,gmane.linux.debian.ports.powerpc |
|---|---|
| Organization | Debian |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 16:56 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit : > On 4/1/20 4:51 PM, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > > > FWIW, sbcl builds fine for me on mipsel if clang is used as the C compiler, > > > I'll file a separate bug report for that. > > > > I have mixed feelings about this. I am worried by the fact that those > > architectures are not really supported upstream. Hence, if by chance we > > manage to compile SBCL on one of those mostly-unsupported archs, I > > don’t know how we would be able to deal with regressions that could > > appear in the future, and that would block testing migration for > > supported archs. > > First of all, testing migration is only affected if: > > a) a package previously built fine on a certain architecture > b) the architecture in question is one of the release architectures > (this does not apply for alpha, hppa, ppc64, riscv64) > > So, the currently only candidate for this scenario is mipsel and I think this > is a risk that is bearable, in particular since upstream considers 32-bit mips > one of the supported architectures unlike alpha and hppa. There is also armel that you added recently (I don’t know how supported it is by upstream). > In the worst case, you will have to file a removal bugs for sbcl on mipsel > if upstream is really unwilling to fix the build issue on mipsel which I don't > think is the case. I have had a lot of interaction with Doug Kratzman from > sbcl upstream and he is usually very responsive. > > I will help with the package in any case. Note that several reverse build-dependencies of sbcl (e.g. pgloader) would have to be removed as well. In any case, thanks for your commitment to helping with portability. I’m going to apply the patch attached to the present bug in the next upload. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEU5UdlScuDFuCvoxKLOzpNQ7OvkoFAl6Erc4ACgkQLOzpNQ7O vkpsqA//dVe/zxQERnCHau/RSRRX1OqQJzeofMiEckC3MRT0+/FfAOxa0PBNI/Pn LgyUZjudZPbyw80uvIVgwMtnisWirOrp9GlyhCS6dhZNknHDJhzIE0VgqVxLL4X1 /twnieTGM2N+ouG2rSM33U6mktRoO9bc6gzNlDAl9O1AOWieXxld+I6/OnA4nkHu rMJrz3s4CSH61Ap24TM6UNMzvpgMamyBXae/7WRRsCQNOw4wM7vJbexGGjswNWaa tvQlShXOSfDfr9lhNJD1NMnSJtyT1yrLdUMmdCo35UAIOq0ekMP3hA5Qd1sYnOUt kaiKOFCIAO765aR5eFHuW2dHHox3E8c9J/u5vKn+77uT12UUULGoR8ck65uAMgbC TqBsx+56OMNy+haGLmITICtSdBMXgT0sr0IFahi8kh0ZJZrMpbfkhNwL1s6bgISS 99MD5T3JmUOYtd1juutdVjvDnlco6QxWxwB2Kx0DUUiMgTevlOsUKzdO58bXGr2g 0KPLEU6IkiuveoJ/ldW6I7I4cOP8NvjGWoKJQFSB1M87SkH66Bce2BoCCd8KN6T5 vwoMSpmLxBoX0dYmuYU/nYzmKhyA0tJfuoQ5b3aQcI0wHVeG5yQe16m0SUE0LJeC LPcrNVmEKZBb92u36EkJU5v+rLp3GTjug54agL+8oNupeZtgK4o= =tgCa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----