From: Peter V. E. <pva...@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). Groetjes, Peter |