Re: [PATCH]: Fix sparc64 build...

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:22:27 +0100
>
>   
>> For me the main reason for or against it is break probability. Merging
>> will avoid stupid breakages like ones you fixed but may introduce more
>> subtle ones
>>     
>
> You lack a cross-build environment?
>   
I have only cross-build environment for ppc and mipsel. I installed
sparc cross-toolchain from emdebian but apparently it's not enough to
build grub-sparc. I was actually thinking that grub2-sparc was uploaded 
to debian and so at least compile-tested.
> I test build the Linux kernel for about 4 or 5 platforms, all on the
> same computer.
>
> And also as we've seen, keeping the build working doesn't keep bugs
> from creeping in.  Someone just needs to actively build and install
> test the tree on the given platform if you really want to avoid
> problems.
>
> I have about half a year of potential regressions I'm about to
> discover on sparc64.  That's not an acceptable situation, long term.
>
> I might get hit by a bus or whatever, so it would be nice if someone
> other than me were at least testing the code base out on sparc64.
>
> That way problems get spotted when they get added, or soon afterwards,
> not 6 months later like some things are about to. :-)
>
>   
The problem is that nobody of us has such hardware. I would happily do a
sparc boot every 2 weeks but I just don't have a sparc


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature