Re: RFC: remove the "tile" architecture from glibc

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

On 07/03/2018 13:08, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 03/07/2018 05:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> No-one has posted glibc test results for 2.27 or 2.26, despite the prior
>> claims of interest in keeping the glibc port.
> 
> To be honest, I find the rapid release model for glibc a bit annoying
> as a downstream. Upstream projects which adopt this model and then require
> constant attention from porters cause lots of stress for the less common
> architectures. There are other upstream projects that want attention as
> well and at some point it just will get extremely frustrating.
> 
> Is such a rapid release model really needed for something like a C library?

My understanding it is aligns with fedora release cycle. We have the advantage
of early testing based on distro userbase, but I also don't have a strong
opinion to have a per year release.

> 
> As for the testsuites: Adhemerval has gotten access from Debian to a
> number of porterboxes for the various uncommon architectures, including
> alpha, hppa, powerpcspe, sh4 and sparc64 and we're happy to give out
> accounts to anyone interested.

Btw I have added 2.26 and 2.27 tests results for alpha, hppa, sh4, sparc64,
and sparcv9.  The powerpspe I thought we should be covered since we had
powerpc hard float and soft float, but with recent build issues I think I
will add it on the loop.

> 
> And since Debian regularly updates glibc as well, you can get most testsuite
> runs also by just checking the build logs (click on the green or red texts):
> 
>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=glibc&suite=sid
> 
> Note: Testsuites for sh4 and m68k are currently disabled.
> 
> Adrian
>