From: Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@de...> - 2005-05-02 10:09:16
Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
>> 1 build a sbcl with clisp (version 2.33)
>> 2 build a new sbcl with the generated sbcl
>> 3 use this second generation sbcl as "final" version.
> Doing the step 3 is still a good idea IMO, though, since self-building
> is a pretty good basic test.
That was the idea.
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> They should be exactly equivalent to each other. If you can make this
> work, then that's good; on the other hand, I believe that clisp-2.33.2
> (and indeed the current version) has stack handling bugs in its pretty
> printer, which can easily cause a broken build. (No-one ever said
> this would be easy :-)
So far the build seems to work. How would the bugs manifest themselves?
I like the clisp idea because it 'fixes' the problem of testing the sbcl
before uploading it (bug 302355) and I can add new platforms at will.
> As for getting a mips binary, if the system needs to be
> bootstrapped... as a Debian Developer you presumably have access to a
> system? At that, Thiemo can probably provide one, too? I also have
We have mips: http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=casals but that only
has 160MB of memory (and a mipsel
http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=casals with 128MB of memory but we
are talking about mips, right?). If the clisp idea fails I could use them
to build a package.
Does the following architecture set look sane: alpha i386 powerpc sparc
amd64 mips ?
I will also disable the sb-bsd-socket build-time tests, as I cannot depend
on having a inetd echo service or a /dev/log socket present (bug 306711).