Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k

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

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

> On Wed, 2025-06-18 at 13:50 +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > How is messing with a hobbyist project "harmful" in any way? That makes 
> > > no sense.
> > > 
> > 
> > If your port was a pure hobbyist project, you would never have brought 
> > your complaint to the upstream mailing lists, where developers have to 
> > work with ALL interested parties and make the necessary compromises.
> 
> Can you list ALL interested parties, please?
> 
> I only know about Gentoo and Debian and both want to make the switch.
> 

That's what code review is for. I'd be happy to show you how your patches 
will have an adverse affect on others, once you post them all. (And I mean 
ALL patches -- including the ones you expect Debian to carry.)

> > But, as usual, you're trying to have it both ways. You pretend that 
> > wiping wiping your slate clean and starting over doesn't impact anyone 
> > else. But then you complain when the upstream projects don't care to 
> > invest effort into your scheme.
> 
> Again, can you list the other downstream projects that would be affected 
> and that oppose this change? Please come with actual evidence instead of 
> just remaining vague.
> 

Again, please post patches instead of "remaining vague". Also, FYI, the 
development process doesn't demand lists. Just one regression would be 
sufficient.

> > The way to find a compromise is to build the thing you need, and then, 
> > if any of it is found to be useful upstream, send patches! That's how 
> > this process has always worked, has it not?
> 
> I have never denied that. The problem here is that I started a 
> discussion to resolve a longstanding problem with the m68k port and you 
> immediately started shooting at it instead of trying to work something 
> out together.
> 

Cool story. But the record shows that you went on the offensive, 
threatening to break the ABI, and I merely responded.

> > Moreover, to the extent that those patches get merged, we will have 
> > the beginnings of a second ABI with a second tuple. To the extend that 
> > those patches get rejected, you will have a fork on your hands.
> 
> I won't have a problem with maintaining the fork. As I have repeatedly 
> said, the Gentoo people are working on the same change, so it's more 
> like the upstream developers that would exclude themselves.
> 

And yet, two days prior, you wrote, "I'm not forking any packages". The 
emptiness of that commitment is abundantly clear now.

> > So, some upstream developers will have to support both ABIs (for them, 
> > you've just created work). Other developers will have to choose 
> > between either one (for them, you've just make collaboration more 
> > difficult).
> 
> You're again being vague. You talk about Linux/m68k as if there were 
> dozens of downstream distributions and projects when there is in fact 
> just Debian and Gentoo which both, as I have said countless times now, 
> want to make the switch.
> 
> So, I have no idea what these other mystical downstream projects should 
> be.
> 

Where did I mention "projects"? You need to read the messages you reply 
to.

> > This is a lose/lose proposition. And if you think I'm wrong about 
> > that, please just send patches and demonstrate why.
> 
> I have received multiple messages now, off- and on-list, from users that 
> are supporting my efforts as they see the value in making software more 
> useful to users instead of just insisting on adhering to a broken ABI 
> that no one really cares about anymore in the year 2025.
> 

Again, 1990's silicon doesn't care for your 2025 package archive.