Re: sparc lost its binary pakages

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola%libero.it@localhost> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Marcin Gondek wrote:
>> If TNF is not able to host custom build packages, which is ok,
>> community should help, how much it is in GB?
>
> I don't know what the full size is for e.g. sparc64 packages or x86?
> It will be of course for sure less, because I will not build all
> packages. No intention (nor hope) to build Firefox or OpenOffice or
> such on a SparcStation! It would fail and will be not useful anyway.

x86_65 is about 63 GB

sparc64 is 25 GB for 2024Q3, and 15 GB for 2025Q3 which is still in progress.

> I am currently at 98 packages and 204MB. Not that much, but still a
> lot, thinking it is native build and should be useful. [*]

Indeed, a bulk-small subset, or the packages you care about, is surely
far less than all packages, in both storage space and build time.

> [*] up to now, things are quite smooth, in the past I had many more
> issues. I wonder why nobody bothered to do an official build run?

('nobody bothered' is unnecessarily accusatory langauge.)

"Official" binary packages happen in two cases:

  - the platform is broadly important and TNF hardware is used (x86,
    arm), again with volunteer effort, but with a view that it's
    important.
  - some TNF member has hardware and chooses to do builds

In the second point, it takes a person who wants to spend their time and
effort, who has sparc hardware or is willing to set up emulators, and
who is willing to expend the electricity and heat.  If someone decides
to do it, it happens, and if not, it doesn't.

Asking why zero members of a set of people declined to do some
particular thing isn't really a reasonable question.

It's great you are doing builds, and I hope someone is willing to host
them for you.  But I suspect you're simply running into the reality that
the set of people that care enough about sparc to expend time and effort
on it is dwindling.