Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit: >I emailed whomever I could track down at the time, as well as people >that were suggested as "might be interested" by the ones I managed to >reach. This is like, the third time I try to get a x32 enthusiast to >help ?
Hrm okay. We apparently are somewhat disconnected, although I still hang in #debian-x32 on Freenode. >If https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port was up-to-date, the issue might have >been resolved a long time ago. I added the IRC there. We seem to not have a porter list. Aurélien might know who has porter upload rights; I’d guess me, cbmuser, perhaps kilobyte and maybe Daniel Schepler(?), whom I haven’t seen in ages. >An email to d-devel might be acceptable (unlike sending it to d-d-a, the >fact that you even suggest d-d-a to reach a x32 porter thruly worries Sorry, d-devel is much too high-traffic for me currently, and very polarising and hurting during some… discussions some years ago so I had to unsubscribe. >But IMO, arches *must* have up-to-date, active points of contact, and >that they must be easy to locate when you need them. That biased me Agreed. I know cbmuser does the buildds, but I don’t know who is currently involved. I did tend to consider my status more like “user who occasionally helps fixing stuff” than porter, but if this is what it takes to keep x32, I’d be willing to do more. But we need more coordination for that… >Note that on previous tries, I did email GNU config upstream, and as far >as I recall, the people behind the original patches for x32, and asked >around for people in #d-devel in IRC, etc. > >Also, please keep in mind that I went out of my way to help x32 deploy >in gnu config and Debian at the time it was introduced, it is not like I >have anything against x32 or its continued existence. Okay. Thanks, and appreciated. I was pointed to this bug by an eMail that… somewhat interrupted me during work, so I was scrambling to respond quickly. No slight or something intended. >> >I am seriously considering uploading it and effectively removing x32 >> >support from Debian. This was what alarmed me. >Sure, please send me a patch that applies against latest upstream and I >will carry it for as long as it works *and* if it breaks, delay new >upstreams for a while to get it fixed (that means a few weeks/months, >not an year, though). Okay. That’s an impressive offer, thank you. I’ll work on this… tomorrow, if I can make it. >However, I *recommend* that this page get a proper update including a >list of active points of contact: https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port Indeed. I don’t currently know who to ask, but I’ll point cbmuser to this bug and ask aurel32. I’ve also added an appropriate section near the very top of the page. >And that effort be made to restore x32 in GNU config upstream, even if >it means convincing upstream to accept the dependency on pre-processors. Preprocessor could be even better, if we have CPP_FOR_BUILD we can go with the ifdef used in normal program code as well. But I fear there is a reluctance (I was informed that they wish to deprecate CC_FOR_BUILD entirely, in the above-mentioned thread). Thanks for the informative response, //mirabilos -- <ch> you introduced a merge commit │<mika> % g rebase -i HEAD^^ <mika> sorry, no idea and rebasing just fscked │<mika> Segmentation <ch> should have cloned into a clean repo │ fault (core dumped) <ch> if I rebase that now, it's really ugh │<mika:#grml> wuahhhhhh
