Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1212818

Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416

From	Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.kernel
Subject	Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416
Date	2024-09-14 12:00 +0200
Message-ID	<JmxJn-cb2g-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <JlEad-bCGP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <JlRh7-bLe9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <JlWgO-bOj9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <IeboS-ejA0-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <JlWgO-bOj9-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Ben,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 07:56:09PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> It is trivial for us to add support for additional architectures once
> they are minimally supported in upstream Linux (we may also require
> that dpkg recognises their triplet; I'm not sure).  There is no
> requirement that we define a kernel configuration for the architecture
> at the same time, or ever (see x32).

I understand that it is easy to add support for additional
architectures. The tricky part here is that bootstrapping needs such
support rather early and early tends to mean at a time where the dpkg
architecture name and properties are not yet finalized. Having this
support is crucial for performing test bootstraps and thus validating
the dpkg triplet, so there is a chicken&egg problem here.

As a result, bootstrapping has generally assumed that it needs to cater
for adding support to the linux package and only bothering linux package
maintainers once the architecture is known to dpkg. For doing that, the
bootstrap tooling needs to know whether a prospective architecture is
already supported by the linux source package or not. The necessary
change in src:linux is then rather simple as you pointed out.

> Can we assume that new Debian Linux ports will be able to satisfy that
> or would that be a problem sometimes?

It will be a problem in the common case.

Helmut

Thread

Re: Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-09-04 15:40 +0200
  Re: Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org> - 2024-09-09 02:20 +0200
    Re: Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org> - 2024-09-12 00:40 +0200
      Re: Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 stefanor@debian.org - 2024-09-12 12:00 +0200
        Re: Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2024-09-15 14:10 +0200
      Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2024-09-12 14:40 +0200
        Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org> - 2024-09-12 20:10 +0200
          Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2024-09-14 12:00 +0200
          Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2024-09-15 14:00 +0200
            Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2024-09-15 16:50 +0200
      Re: Bug#1065416: Bastian's offer in #1065416 Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org> - 2024-09-19 22:10 +0200

csiph-web