Hi Paul,
Thanks for the prompt and detailed reply. On 16 June 2024 at 16:13, Paul Gevers wrote: | Hi Dirk, | | On 16-06-2024 2:42 p.m., Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > I may need a hgand with riscv64. | | That's normally a question to the porters, in CC now, so they can have a | look. | | > The 1.34-1 revision needed some build | > changes I had done poorly in such a way that the -O0 no longer applied to | > some arches, this has been fixed in 1.34-2 so armel, armhf, i386 are good. | > But riskv64 still times out. | | Ack. | | > Can we expand the build-time window from the | > (arguably already large) value? | | Not that I know of. | | > Or can we (worst case) turn riskv64 builds | > off? | | That's up to you as a maintainer, but this should be last resort [1]. | Don't forget to request for removal of the existing riscv64 binaries if | you go this route. Please be aware of [2] if you aren't already. True true, and I think I had to pull this 'safety value' once or twice before with challenging / large package. I will re-read [1] and [2] and ponder. riscv64 porters: I would of course also love to hear if you can offer any advice. The package is a tricky one as it contains (a lot of) heavily templated C++ code that is autogenerated via Swig for these Python bindings. The compilation of that one file is tricky. Best, Dirk | Paul | | [1] https://release.debian.org/testing/rc_policy.txt : Packages must be | supported on as many architectures as is *reasonably* possible. | (Emphasis mine). | [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/09/msg00105.html | [DELETED ATTACHMENT OpenPGP_signature.asc, application/pgp-signature] -- dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
