Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-05-10 Thread Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Hi, 2011/4/26 Neil McGovern : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:58:24PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: >> > We don't have faster hardware. >> > We think of a too slow thing in a question >> >> A test of gcc of sh4 takes time. >> When there is not a test, a package is done in about two days. >> >>

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-27 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:29:00PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 08:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > >>>I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintaine

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-26 Thread Matthias Klose
On 04/26/2011 08:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable times

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-26 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok > >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable > >timescale. > > then please drop mips and mi

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-26 Thread Julien Cristau
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 16:41:23 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok > >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable > >timescale. > > then please drop mips and mip

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-26 Thread Matthias Klose
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable timescale. then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least sh4 has a workable, accessible deve

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-26 Thread Neil McGovern
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:58:24PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > > We don't have faster hardware. > > We think of a too slow thing in a question > > A test of gcc of sh4 takes time. > When there is not a test, a package is done in about two days. > > How does sh4 become targeted for the r

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-25 Thread Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Hi, 2011/4/4 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu : > Hi, > > 2011/4/4 Neil McGovern : >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:02:18AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: >>> The package which time needs most is GCC. GCC takes about 6 days. >> >> Ouch! That doesn't sound supportable to be honest. Do you have faster >> hardware? >

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-04-10 Thread Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Hi, 2011/4/4 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu : > Hi, > > 2011/4/4 Neil McGovern : >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:02:18AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: >>> The package which time needs most is GCC. GCC takes about 6 days. >> >> Ouch! That doesn't sound supportable to be honest. Do you have faster >> hardware? >

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-03-30 Thread Laurent GUERBY
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 21:48 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 30.03.2011 21:17, Bill Traynor wrote: > > On 11-03-30 02:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> On 30.03.2011 07:05, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > >>> - ArchiveQualification of sh4 > >>>http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/sh4 > >>> >

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-03-30 Thread Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Hi, 2011/3/31 Matthias Klose : > On 30.03.2011 21:17, Bill Traynor wrote: >> On 11-03-30 02:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 30.03.2011 07:05, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: - ArchiveQualification of sh4    http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/sh4 How do you think about inc

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-03-30 Thread Bill Traynor
On 11-03-30 03:48 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 30.03.2011 21:17, Bill Traynor wrote: On 11-03-30 02:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 30.03.2011 07:05, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: - ArchiveQualification of sh4 http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/sh4 How do you think about including sh4

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-03-30 Thread Matthias Klose
On 30.03.2011 21:17, Bill Traynor wrote: > On 11-03-30 02:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 30.03.2011 07:05, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: >>> - ArchiveQualification of sh4 >>>http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/sh4 >>> >>> How do you think about including sh4 in the next release? >> "Tool

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-03-30 Thread Bill Traynor
On 11-03-30 02:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 30.03.2011 07:05, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: - ArchiveQualification of sh4 http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/sh4 How do you think about including sh4 in the next release? "Toolchain was supported by CodeSourcery" so it's not supported

Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy

2011-03-30 Thread Matthias Klose
On 30.03.2011 07:05, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > - ArchiveQualification of sh4 > http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/sh4 > > How do you think about including sh4 in the next release? "Toolchain was supported by CodeSourcery" so it's not supported anymore? If this is correct, then this i