1 |
On 28 Jan 2016 18:06, Alex McWhirter wrote: |
2 |
> It's also worth noting that at this moment i am not an official Gentoo |
3 |
> developer, although i am working towards having that goal met in the |
4 |
> very near future. So at this point it's possible all of my work is junk |
5 |
> as no one has really looked over it but me :p, so keep that in mind. |
6 |
|
7 |
you don't have to be a dev to get your work merged. you just have to |
8 |
be a dev to do the final push yourself. so if you have changes that |
9 |
you think are ready to go now, we can get them merged. |
10 |
|
11 |
> pciutils will not compile on sparc64, which i believe could be udev |
12 |
> related. See the error below. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> ../../lib64/libudev.so: Only registers %g[2367] can be declared using |
15 |
> STT_REGISTER |
16 |
> |
17 |
> It seems like systemd also has a similar issue. |
18 |
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19019 |
19 |
|
20 |
that bug indicates it's a bug when using gold. so if things are working |
21 |
fine w/ld.bfd, then it's fine to move forward. that bug also makes it |
22 |
sound like there's something fundamentally broken in gold that udev just |
23 |
happens to trip over, so we'd simply say gold isn't yet supported for |
24 |
sparc. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Originally it was decided to use the old sparc keyword for sparc32 and |
27 |
> sparc64, but in this case we have an app that will compile on sparc32 |
28 |
> but not sparc64. How should this be handled? A new keyword would be a |
29 |
> pain, so is there another way of dealing with this? |
30 |
|
31 |
let's ignore the bfd-vs-gold aspect and just assume that it's a situation |
32 |
where sparc64 always fails and sparc32 always works, and there's no way |
33 |
to fix the problem. if that truly is the case, packages can be masked in |
34 |
the sparc64-specific linux profile. it's a bit heavy weight, but since |
35 |
this scenario rarely comes up, it's not that big of a deal. |
36 |
|
37 |
a more pertinent example would probably be something like grub-0. the |
38 |
code fundamentally assumes 32-bit everywhere, and links against 32-bit |
39 |
system libs, so it's not worth our effort to try and rewrite the code |
40 |
to work in a 64-bit env. on amd64 non-multilib systems, we mask it, |
41 |
and provide a grub-static package instead. |
42 |
-mike |