Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-27 Thread Rene Engelhard
Hi, On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:01:46PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2015-02-23 14:20:09 [+0100], Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > > But I'd be surprised if it worked even then, you did pot the brigdes > > (containing > > asm) to apply to x32s ABI and calling conventions, didn't you? >

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-26 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2015-02-23 14:20:09 [+0100], Rene Engelhard wrote: > > But I'd be surprised if it worked even then, you did pot the brigdes > (containing > asm) to apply to x32s ABI and calling conventions, didn't you? > > See http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/bridges/source/cpp_uno using li

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-24 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 02/22/2015 03:56 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > Hi folks! > Here's some news about the x32 port. > [...] What you've done is just awesome. I'm sure there's a ton of application, especially on the server side. It's great to have the full power of the 64 bits arch without doubling the RAM usage (famo

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-23 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:59:17PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 05:00:30PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > the simplest procedure I've found involves going via 7.8 (yes, really). > > But I bootstrapped ghc successfully that way on arm64 and ppc64el, and I > > can probably r

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-23 Thread Rene Engelhard
Hi, On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:56:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > * no libreoffice: java toolchain has JNI issues There's --without-java. Might work or not, doubt many people use it these days. (As long as baseline is 1.5 I can still use gcj...) But I'd be surprised if it worked even then, yo

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:32:12PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:20:46PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:56:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > Here's some news about the x32 port. I'm trying a different approach: > > > instead of using on

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-22 Thread Adam Borowski
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 05:00:30PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:56:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On the other hand, ghc looks like something that needs just more tuits > > and reading about bootstrapping it (no per-arch porting required). > > Bootstrapping our cur

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:56:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On the other hand, ghc looks like something that needs just more tuits > and reading about bootstrapping it (no per-arch porting required). Bootstrapping our current version (7.6) on a new architecture directly is fiendishly complex

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-22 Thread Adam Borowski
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:20:46PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:56:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Here's some news about the x32 port. I'm trying a different approach: > > instead of using only packages uploaded by their {,non-}maintainers, as on > > ftp.debian-

Re: jessie for x32

2015-02-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:56:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > Hi folks! > Here's some news about the x32 port. I'm trying a different approach: > instead of using only packages uploaded by their {,non-}maintainers, as on > ftp.debian-ports.org which tracks unstable, I'm using a separate reposit

jessie for x32

2015-02-21 Thread Adam Borowski
Hi folks! Here's some news about the x32 port. I'm trying a different approach: instead of using only packages uploaded by their {,non-}maintainers, as on ftp.debian-ports.org which tracks unstable, I'm using a separate repository on ftp.debian-x32.org that includes packages with porting patches a