From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 2 18:54:52 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14AC216A70A for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:54:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@freebsd-host.net) Received: from freebsd-host.net (7d.75.344a.static.theplanet.com [74.52.117.125]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F0813C4C5 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:54:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@freebsd-host.net) Received: from [85.116.28.233] (host-85-116-28-233.tlf.freebsd-host.net [85.116.28.233] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0 user=daniel mech=CRAM-MD5) by freebsd-host.net (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lA2Eajo4058867; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:36:47 GMT Message-ID: <472B35E7.7020801@freebsd-host.net> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:36:23 +0000 From: Daniel Austin MBCS User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon , freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org References: <200711011822.25884.linimon@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <200711011822.25884.linimon@lonesome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: Scanned by F-Prot Antivirus (http://www.f-prot.com) Cc: Subject: Re: Doesn't anything work around here? X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dan@freebsd-host.net List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:54:52 -0000 Hi, I'm more than happy to test out ports on sparc64. I have a few sparc64 8.0-current machines here. If some dont work, I may be in a position to patch them so that they will - If there's any specific ports that people are more interested in, please let me know off list and i'll be happy to at least take a peek and possibly come up with some patches. Thanks, Daniel. Mark Linimon wrote: >> What *really* annoys me about this is that noone has bothered to mark >> the ports as "not working (yet)". I can remember that a fair while >> back there was also still a setiathome port in the tree. If you tried >> anything with that on sparc64 you got a message that it only worked >> with i386. > > Sorry to come in on this discussion late. I am behind on email. > > I'm one of the people who goes through the ports and marks them > broken -- at least on the basis of the build cluster runs. As of > the last complete run on sparc64-6, I think I did indeed mark those. > > The latest sparc64-7 run is continuing. With the limited number of > sparc64 machines we have, the elapsed time for even _incremental_ > builds is on the order of 3-5 weeks, depending on what's changed in > the meantime. Once that gets done, I'll probably do another pass. > > As for ports that compile and install correctly, but just don't work, > we rely on our user base to file PRs. But there is a bit of chicken- > and-egg problem: not many maintainers have access to these machines. > Much more so than on i386, we are reliant on user fixes. > > I personally think it's still worth putting work into sparc ports, > if for nothing else the potential for a solid, working, FreeBSD/sun4v > down the road. But with the resources we have right now, the priorities > are: i386, amd64, then sparc64. > > From my intuition from the ports PR statistics, our user base ratio > is about 25:10:1 for those three. (Best guess based on the numbers > from ~6 months ago).