state of the ports

[Stafford Horne]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:35:04AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> So... after all the testing gone into the release I thought I'd summarize a bit
> for the list here - by sorting the glibc ports into "excellent", "good", "medium",
> "bad", and "nobody even tried".
> 
> Feel free to correct my assessment... Most of the underlying info is on the
> 2.39 release wiki page.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas
> 
> 
> 1. EXCELLENT 
> ============
> 
> aarch64
>   - tests pass nearly everywhere
>   - on raspi, likely timeouts
> 
> arm-linux-gnueabi (soft-float) 
> arm-linux-gnueabihf (hard-float) 
>   - one mystery test failure (elf/tst-align3)
> 
> loongarch64 
>   - tests pass
> 
> powerpc64
> powerpc64le
>   - tests pass
> 
> s390x
>   - tests pass
> 
> x86-64
>   - tests pass
> 
> x86-64 (x32)
>   - one expected failure, tests pass otherwise
> 
> 
> 2. GOOD
> ============
> 
> powerpc64
> ppc 32bit hf
>   - one failure that indicates something broken (nptl/tst-thread-exit-clobber)
> 
> riscv64
>   - ~5 failures, but there may be timeouts among them
> 
> s390 (31bit)
>   - two failures due to gcc breakage (gmon/tst-gmon-pie*)
> 
> sparc
>   - ~5 failures (!)
> 
> x86 (32bit)
>   - in general tests pass
>   - there may be breakage on old hw (pentium2)
> 
> 
> 3. MEDIUM
> ============
> 
> ARC
>  - 11 failures
> 
> hppa2.0
>  - 12 failures (on ~20 year old hw! that's actually good)
> 
> 
> 4. BAD
> ============
> 
> Debian
>  - OK not really a port :) but it seems there are some machines where
>    broken Debian installs lead to massive amounts of FAIL
> 
> mips (o32)
>  - actually broken right now, it seems, the tests came too late
> 
> mips (n64)
>  - mostly math failures
> 
> riscv32
>  - 37 failures across the board
> 
> 
> 99. NOBODY TRIED
> =================
> 
> alpha
> 
> c-sky
> 
> hppa1.1
> 
> m68k
> 
> microblaze
> 
> mips64 (N32)
> 
> niosii
> 
> openrisc

Hello,

I it unfortunate that openrisc ended up in NOBODY TRIED, I usually try to test
the port for each release.  However, this time the testing mail slipped through
my mail filters.

Note, during "glibc 2.36 - Machine testing." Carlos CCed each maintainer on the
announcement mail.  This makes it easier for us maintainers to know we need to
take action.

Can maintainers be CCed on these announcements going forward?

For 2.39, I see the main only went to the list.

-Stafford