Re: The future of mipsel port

Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> Wed, 19 Jul 2023 08:43:21 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.ports.mips,gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 2023-07-19 11:23, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-07-18 at 12:45 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
> 
> > As CIP United, we do maintain an unofficial port of mipsel.
> > So I wish that Debian can still accept our patch to support mipsel
> > port (source only).
> > https://repo.oss.cipunited.com/debian/
> 
> The closest Debian has to source-only ports are the ones that are
> supported in rebootstrap but not on debian-ports. You could also
> migrate mipsel to debian-ports instead of dropping it entirely.

Please note that maintaining a port in debian-ports in good state
requires more work than an official port. Therefore this should only be
done if there are people actually going to do the work, otherwise it's
just a waste of time and resources.

> https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap
> https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New
> 
> > (And let's keep mips64el port).
> 
> DSA would appreciate it if you could publicly document your plans for
> trixie mips64el hardware qualification on the wiki, as riscv64 did:

Yes. Please also clarify how do you plan to handle the NaN2008 issue for
mips64el. Some of the newer buildds have NaN2008 FPU, while the port and
the toolchain are configured for the old MIPS NaN. This causes some
issues in some packages, a lot of headaches to packages maintainers and
upstream that have to debug the issues, and eventually testsuites being
fully or partially disabled.

Regards
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[email protected]                     http://aurel32.net

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)