[pkg-golang-devel] Bug#867058: golang-1.8 and mips*

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 10/26/2017 07:12 PM, peter green wrote:
> Therefore golang maintainers you have two choices.
> 
> 1. Accept John's changes so that your package can be built on mips*.
> 2. File a removal request for the binaries uploaded by John

I assume that gccgo on mips is still broken as this situation hasn't changed,
so I would suggest removing the packages again. I can file a bug for that
since I am the one who is responsible that these packages are there in the
first place.

>> > I was under the impression that the golang maintainers want all architectures
>> > bootstrapped from gccgo? This was the reason mips64el support was not in 
>> > stretch despite upstream support for it. If a normal bootstrap would have been acceptable,
>> > I would have done it ages ago.
>>
>> Why? What difference does it make? If a different bootstrapping compiler
>> results in a different golang compiler after a second rebuild, there is
>> something wrong with the compiler anyway.
> Self-bootstrapping compilers create a maintenance burden. When things go
> wrong they sometimes can't be fixed through source package changes alone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most compilers I know of in Debian are self-
bootstrapping. I recently started working on rustc and that one needs itself
to be built, the same applies for fpc - which you co-maintain - GHC, and OpenJDK,
for example. So, I am confident to say that the build system for the golang
packages is not the norm but an exception.

Also, since gccgo is apparently known to produce broken code, I am not sure
I would consider it a good idea to use it as the compiler to build the golang
packages.

> Porterboxes are also of limited utility because you can't install non-archive
> packages on them.

That's correct. But you are forgetting that there is the possibility that
compilers can be cross-compiled on amd64 and for most compilers, that
works pretty well. In fact, there are efforts by people like Helmut Grohne,
whom I support in this effort, to make Debian as a whole more cross-buildable.

> Then there are derivatives to consider, if a self-bootstrapping compiler
> gets broken in a derivative that rebuilds everything then finding someone
> who can un-jam it can be a pain.

I'm not really sure whether I want to accept this argument. I am developing
for Debian and in Debian and I don't see why my work should be limited by
any derivative.

> Whether to take on that burden should be a decision for the maintainers of
> the package, not for some flyby contributer.

That "flyby contributor" you are talking about is maintaining most ports
architectures and has already fixed tons of issues on the various architectures
in Debian. So while I sometimes make mistakes like these, my net contributions
to Debian are hugely positive.

And, as we say in German, "Wo gehobelt wird, da fallen Späne" or, as you
would say in English, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs".

In short, if you are touching lots of things in Debian and helping out
at many fronts, you will make such mistakes from time to time. I admit
it was a mistake and I apologize for that. But that still doesn't give
you the right to call me a "flyby contributor".

>> Odd. Last time I did this for fpc [1], you were actually very happy. Now
>> you're getting upset despite the only changes actually necessary are
>> two lines changed in debian/control.in and debian/helpers/goenv.sh.
>>
>> What's the difference now?
> 
> We are happy that you are working on getting packages ported to your architecture.

Who is "we"?

> What we are not happy about is how you are doing it. You need to ensure
> that source goes to the archive either before or at the same time as the binaries and
> you need to either coordinate with maintainers or (if the maintainers are unresponsive)
> follow the normal NMU guidelines.

If it wasn't for me, FPC would still probably not bootstrapped on mips* and m68k
yet and FPC upstream wouldn't have had the possibility to work on the SPARC64
port which they did on hardware that I helped to provide. Again, I am doing so
much for Debian, that I find it a bit unfair that you are preaching me like this.

Thanks,
Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz at debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913