« Return to Thread: arm port patch
Re: arm port patch
by Alan Barclay
::
Rate this Message:
Alex Peshkov wrote:
> On Friday 04 April 2008 18:31, marius popa wrote:
>> i have seen this patch for arm/debian
>> maybe it should be added to the main tree (or at least add the new id)
>>
>> http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-firebird/2.1.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/port-
>> arm.patch;h=2e161ba5155e0f43d34fc199b68db8dfa5ddab74;hb=HEAD
>
> I've been in contact with a guy who was making a port. For that moment lock
> manager on ARM did not work correctly - it was randomly failing (races ???).
> I have never received any message stating that this was fixed. As long as
> people need single-user access, firebird on arm works for them. May be it's
> even OK for cellular phones (as far as I know, ARM9 is used in them). But I'm
> not sure, should we add such ports to main tree or not.
>
> If someone can confirm firebird working on ARM correctly, I have no problems
> adding that port.
Hi,
It was I who spent time last Spring/Summer working on this. And I would
very much like to see the current efforts (in particular, the CLASS_xxx)
incorporated into the main tree.
After playing with various GCC versions / options, the lock manager did
appear to function (without locking up). Although I did not create a
HUGE load ... so it is possible that there is still a some hidden problem.
I am already in the process of buying another Buffalo LinkStation
(running Debian Etch 'FreeLink') and will begin working with Firebird
again very soon.
Best Regards,
Alan.
>> Also we should discuss the next id's for these architectures
>> http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=firebird2.0
>
> I think we should better think about changing the whole idea of
> CLASS_FREEBSD_AMD64 naming schema. We must have separate entry for operating
> system and separate - for HW architecture. This will greatly decrease number
> of required manually supported classes. This may be done in ODS12.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
> Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
> On Friday 04 April 2008 18:31, marius popa wrote:
>> i have seen this patch for arm/debian
>> maybe it should be added to the main tree (or at least add the new id)
>>
>> http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-firebird/2.1.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/port-
>> arm.patch;h=2e161ba5155e0f43d34fc199b68db8dfa5ddab74;hb=HEAD
>
> I've been in contact with a guy who was making a port. For that moment lock
> manager on ARM did not work correctly - it was randomly failing (races ???).
> I have never received any message stating that this was fixed. As long as
> people need single-user access, firebird on arm works for them. May be it's
> even OK for cellular phones (as far as I know, ARM9 is used in them). But I'm
> not sure, should we add such ports to main tree or not.
>
> If someone can confirm firebird working on ARM correctly, I have no problems
> adding that port.
Hi,
It was I who spent time last Spring/Summer working on this. And I would
very much like to see the current efforts (in particular, the CLASS_xxx)
incorporated into the main tree.
After playing with various GCC versions / options, the lock manager did
appear to function (without locking up). Although I did not create a
HUGE load ... so it is possible that there is still a some hidden problem.
I am already in the process of buying another Buffalo LinkStation
(running Debian Etch 'FreeLink') and will begin working with Firebird
again very soon.
Best Regards,
Alan.
>> Also we should discuss the next id's for these architectures
>> http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=firebird2.0
>
> I think we should better think about changing the whole idea of
> CLASS_FREEBSD_AMD64 naming schema. We must have separate entry for operating
> system and separate - for HW architecture. This will greatly decrease number
> of required manually supported classes. This may be done in ODS12.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
> Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
« Return to Thread: arm port patch
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
