Bug#766695: atlas: add ppc64el support

[Mauricio Faria de Oliveira]

Hi Sébastien,

On 10/25/2014 03:39 PM, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> However I am not sure to understand some bits of it. Why do you add a
> new POWER8 architecture type, if you are using the GENERIC one? It is
> either one or the other. My impression is that
> atlas.3.10.2-add_power8_cpu.patch is unneeded.

Yes, I agree. The reason for it to be there is just to follow as close
as possible to what (we expect) would be upstream in some time, so the
package downstream didn't differ much.

That one can certainly be removed (and the 'if ppc64el' bits for generic
on debian/rules that cope with it).

> Also, I really dislike the kludge consisting in modifying the quilt
> series file. Isn't it rather possible to use a standard patch (applied
> on all arches) based on #ifdefs?

Indeed not the most elegant way (kludging the quilt series).  It's being
used because one of the patched files modifies a non-preprocessed file
(AFAICT) - the cases/optimized routines one -, thus it seems not to be
possible to use an #ifdef (which would look way better).

Do you happen to know another way/suggestion for it?  I'd be happy to
rework the patches/mechanism in another way that fits the source pkg/
maintainers preferences.

>> May you please consider it for an upload? (specially for making
>> jessie)
>
> Note that it's now too late to upload this patch before the freeze
> (because the freeze starts on November 5, and there is a 10-day
> migration delay). However, we may obtain the permission of the Release
> Team to upload this patch to jessie; simplifying this patch as much as
> possible will increase the possibility of having this happening.

Ok, that's certainly understandable.  With the above comments (can drop
power8 patch and its associated piece for generic arch in debian/rules,
and asking for alternative mechanisms for non-#ifdef patches), what do
you think is a good way to go?

Thank you,

-- 
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
IBM Linux Technology Center.