[plt-scheme] 3m platform support

From: Marek Kubica (marek at xivilization.net)
Date: Sat Apr 19 16:46:59 EDT 2008


Thanks for your answer!

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:37:42 -0400
Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:

> > I'm doing a little bit on investigation because I am curious why the
> > current DrScheme has not entered Debian testing yet. You can see
> > it's status on <http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/drscheme.html>,
> > telling that it's blocken because there are no packages for alpha,
> > hppa, mips, mipsel, powerpc and sparc yet.
> I don't know of any problems on these platforms -- and if you look at
> the platforms that we build on, you'll see that we do have a sparc and
> a ppc build.

Hmm, I hadn't checked this yet. I did not know what garbage collector
these platforms use by default. After I sent my initial message I read
in the PLT blog that 3m is the default since release 370. So it's
indeed rather unlikely that 3m itself is causing the trouble.
> Looking at these logs, I don't see any problems except the
> `dh_movefiles' line.  I don't remember exactly, but perhaps the file
> is not there when you use a shared-library build?  (We don't use
> shared libraries for our linux builds, yet.)

I just did a shared-library build on my amd64 system and
plt-372/src/mzscheme/mzdyn3m.o does exist here. I do not have access to
one of the machines on which the build (or rather, the packaging) fails
so I wanted to be sure that this is not something 3m-related. Seems to
be some corner case on some architectures, so I start looking for a
machine I can test on.

> > It would be fine to have a more recent version of DrScheme in Lenny,
> > so I'd be interested in cleaning this up. My question is now: does
> > 3m work on these arches at all? If not, the build has to be changed
> > to use another GC (on these or even on all arches, I don't really
> > know, since I am not a Debian Developer myself), so it can be built
> > cleanly.
> I don't think that 3m is the problem.  Also, perhaps it makes more
> sense to re-do things with our current svn sources -- we are planning
> on releasing v4 in the near future.

Indeed. Version 4 seems to be a release with many changes, my current
focus is getting a recent version < 4 at into Lenny, we'll see whether
there will be enough time to get v4 packaged on Debian.

So, thanks for the clarification, I'll investigate what the real
problem is.


Posted on the users mailing list.