Re: how to convey package porting details?

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jun 06, Paul Wise  wrote:

> There are lots of packages that need porting to every new architecture
> that comes along. There are others that don't require porting but
> benefit in some way from porting to some aspect of the architecture.
Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is 
going to be our last port for a very long time?

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: how to convey package porting details?

[肖盛文]

在 2022/6/6 16:47, Marco d'Itri 写道:

> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is 
> going to be our last port for a very long time?

Perhaps loongarch64 will the next port.

https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/loongarch64


Some codes of loongarch64 had been added to upstream kernel:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.19-rc1&id=8be4493119b0aedf7dd61e1ca520fb398537b53e


-- 
肖盛文 xiao sheng wen Faris Xiao 
微信(wechat)：atzlinux
《铜豌豆 Linux》https://www.atzlinux.com
基于 Debian 的 Linux 中文 桌面 操作系统
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=atzlinux%40sina.com
GnuPG Public Key: 0x00186602339240CB



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: how to convey package porting details?

[Adam Borowski]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 06, Paul Wise  wrote:
> 
> > There are lots of packages that need porting to every new architecture
> > that comes along. There are others that don't require porting but
> > benefit in some way from porting to some aspect of the architecture.
> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is 
> going to be our last port for a very long time?

loongarch has just been merged into mainline kernel, is in binutils 2.38
and gcc 12, and those guys seems to be doing some serious work to get
into distributions.

Besides CPU archs, it looks worthwhile to investigate replacing glibc
with musl, which would represented as a new arch.

We may also want to raise ISA baseline in eg. amd64 -- with the amount
of old hardware in the wild, it'd certainly be done like armel->armhf
rather than i386->(really i686).


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Loongarch's name is loong.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀
⠈⠳⣄

Re: how to convey package porting details?

[Holger Levsen]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is 
> going to be our last port for a very long time?

you mean like 640kb should be enough for everyone? :)


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Words may inspire but only action creates change.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: how to convey package porting details?

[Paul Wise]

On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 10:47 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is 
> going to be our last port for a very long time?

There are at least two or three new architectures in the pipeline
already. loongarch64 from Loongson was already mentioned, but there is
also already arc and probably arc64 from Synopsis. I'm not sure if
CHERI and ARM Morello will require a new arch, but ISTR they will.
If The Mill ever gets off the ground I expect there will be a Debian
port of that. There are also other CPU arches supported by Linux like
C-Sky as well as ideas for ports to various kernels and other things
like CloudABI or WASM. There are also perhaps rebootstrap-only ports
or full ports for moving baselines backwards or forwards like to
amd64v3 or MIPSr1, which Debian no longer supports but could easily
support and would enable Debian on hardware that currently ships.

https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/loongarch64
https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/arc
https://wiki.debian.org/Ideas/Ports

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: how to convey package porting details?

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jun 06, Holger Levsen  wrote:

> > Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is 
> > going to be our last port for a very long time?
> you mean like 640kb should be enough for everyone? :)
More like "free ABI is eating the world".

I do not see much future for the architectures mentioned here except 
maybe loongarch64 as a geopolitical tool, but sure: no objections if the 
people who actually work on ports think this is worthwhile.
Maybe the usual suspects which require significant porting work could 
start documenting instructions for porters in debian/README.source.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1012408: ITP: mathjax-siunitx -- Extension for libjs-mathjax to suppourt siunitx

[Georges Khaznadar]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Georges Khaznadar 
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

* Package name: mathjax-siunitx
  Version : 0.1
  Upstream Author : Yves Delley  
* URL : https://github.com/burnpanck/MathJax-siunitx
* License : Apache-2
  Programming Lang: Javascript
  Description : Extension for libjs-mathjax to support siunitx

 The siunitx package allows to typeset physical quantities consistently
 using the syntax \SI{299e6}{\metre\per\second}. This extension provides
 the same syntax in MathJax. Please see the documentation for siunitx
 on CTAN for details about siunitx.
 .
 MathJax was designed with the goal of consolidating the recent advances in web
 technologies into a single, definitive, math-on-the-web platform supporting
 the major browsers and operating systems.

I need this javascript package as an engine to embed in a future web
service, allowing teachers to share free-libre documents. As some of them
require formula rendering, and some of them teach physics, MathJax is
not enough if one wants to take in account properly physical quantities.
Hence this extension.

Re: how to convey package porting details?

[Paul Wise]

On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 16:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> Maybe the usual suspects which require significant porting work could
> start documenting instructions for porters in debian/README.source.

Thats a good start, but doesn't provide a standard way to find out
which packages contain such instructions. So maybe README.porting?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part