Hi, On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 6:41 AM Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> wrote: > > > 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. > Okay, I will have a look at this package.
After a quick look, there are a lot of architecture-related build flags here, so I might start there first. BR, Bo > 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 >
