Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k

[Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

> 
> However, that doesn't help with the current situation which is that the 
> number of packages that fail to build from source on m68k on Linux is 
> increasing and it's becoming more difficult to maintain the port.
> 

Porting to m68k, with it's quirks, is more difficult for you than it was 
for your many predecessors because the Debian archive contains many more 
packages and many more lines of code than it did historically.

That's obviously the root cause of your problem, and it's also the reason 
why the Debian archive is less and less relevant, being that 680x0 systems 
still have the same number of transistors that they always did.

Now, Coldfire is a different story. But you continue to ignore it despite 
the fact your pet Debian/m68k port probably would not exist without 
Coldfire users/developers.

If there is insufficient manpower at the Debian project to patch the 
pointer abuse in Python, how could you possibly have produced the TLS 
implementation, which Codesourcery provided for its Coldfire customers, 
and which you ship?