The brief status of Debian riscv porting --2022/10/22
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20221022145808.zuftgygxfkizeowp@debian
Hi!
Thank you for sharing the porting status of RISCV64.
When I make this a Debian official port, I'm worried about what is a blocker. Of course, there is a porting package coverage, but do you know what the support status
such as infrastructure and others when it becomes an official port? If possible, I would like to cooperate with this.
According to architecture requalification[0] and other information[1][2], Buildd-DSA[3] and
porterbox seem to be major blockers. Are you or other member working on these?
[0]: https://release.debian.org/testing/arch_qualify.html
[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/riscv64
[2]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/riscv64
[3]: https://dsa.debian.org/ports/hardware-requirements/
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
2022年10月22日(土) 23:58 Bo YU <[email protected]>:
Quoted 43 lines
Hi,
In the past two weeks, due to the atomic problem and the cargo build dependency problem, the number of riscv64 built packages has been maintained at about 15k[0], which is a little lower than before. Because when is unknown the upstream of GCC will be able to merge the patch of solving the atomic issue, and the porter sends the patch to build the affected package.
Another thanks to pabs, we maybe have some work to do about cross-build for Debian riscv64. But limited by personal experience, I cannot evaluate these specific jobs. Here, I just grep the pabs's wiki[1] here.
``` Make the port available for maintainers and users to cross-build packages to: Add support to the binutils source package Add libc6*-dev-$arch-cross, libc6*-$arch-cross and linux-libc-dev-$arch-cross packages to the cross-toolchain-base (for ftp-master.d.o arches) or cross-toolchain-base-ports (for ports.d.o arches) source packages Add support to the current gcc-N source package Add metapackages to the gcc-defaults source package Add a crossbuild-essential-$arch metapackage to the build-essential source package ```I've tried building some of these packages and obviously need to add riscv64 support (maybe with some help from the Debian toolchain folks for me).
[0]: https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=riscv64&suite=sid
[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/New#Other_work--
Regards,
--
Bo YU
Signature · 3 lines
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org / kernel.org}
GPG ID: 32247FBB40AD1FA6A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20221025101413.uwvgp7jrv6sjztnn@debian
Hi!
2022年10月25日(火) 19:14 Bo YU <[email protected]>:
Quoted 13 lines
Hi,
Quoted 10 lines · Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Hi!
Thank you for sharing the porting status of RISCV64.
When I make this a Debian official port, I'm worried about what is a blocker. Of course, there is a porting package coverage, but do you know what the support status
such as infrastructure and others when it becomes an official port? If possible, I would like to cooperate with this.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
According to architecture requalification[0] and other information[1][2], Buildd-DSA[3] and
porterbox seem to be major blockers. Are you or other member working on these?Yeah, It seems we are stuck in setting up official buildd machines. Currently this is working by the Debian RISC-V buildd team. Unfortunately, haven't got the latest news from them for a long time. But there is no doubt that they are working hard on it.
Thank you for your comment.
I will ask the RISCV64 Buildd team about current status.
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
Signature · 3 lines
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org / kernel.org}
GPG ID: 32247FBB40AD1FA6