Hi!
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.
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.
Thanks,
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
