1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.PORTS.SUPERH

  • Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

    From Niels Thykier@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 21 00:20:01 2016
    Copy: debian-release@lists.debian.org
    Copy: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --P0TqltFWadjHdWwlc4n2qiG7sc7Qwu426
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    niels@thykier.net:
    Hi,

    Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of
    2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following
    before Friday, the 9th of September:

    [...]


    Thanks to all that replied to the roll call.

    We got replies from all architectures except amd64 (Waived), i386
    (Waived) and powerpc (problematic). For the ports that replied, all had
    at least 2 or more porters.
    We also got a parallel update from Matthias Klose on the toolchain
    state[1]. Based on these we have updated the current state of the
    architecture qualification for Stretch[2].

    * Please check that your name is listed as a porter on [2] (see [3]
    for how). If I missed you, please do not hesitate to let me know.

    * For powerpc, mips and mipsel: Please note that we have added a
    (potentially) blocking issues for your architecture.
    - powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)
    - mips+mipsel: #834147 (RM concern, possibly blocker)


    As for the piggy backed question about PIE by default:

    * arm64: 2 OK, 1 did not mention it
    * armel: 3 OK, 1 OK if tested first, 1 was neutral and 1 did not
    mention it
    * armhf: 4 OK, 1 OK if tested first, 1 was neutral and 2 did not
    mention it
    * mips+mipsel+mips64el: 3 OK, 1 OK later, 4 did not mention it.
    * ppc64el: 3 OK, 1 recommended further testing/research
    * s390x: 2 OK

    Over all, most people (who answered it) was positive towards the switch.
    Based on this, I suspect that if we make PIE default in Stretch, then
    we will do it for all architectures. That said, you will be notified if
    that default changes for Stretch.

    Thanks,
    ~Niels

    [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2016/09/msg00263.html

    [2] https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html

    [3] Hover your mouse over the number of porters for your architecture
    or download the underlying data file from:
    https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_spec.yaml



    --P0TqltFWadjHdWwlc4n2qiG7sc7Qwu426--

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX4adCAAoJEAVLu599gGRCIaEQAKo0ET/fEQscC8460wdS+AcF UDQzbTm0n0IE7rpm4YTnLVjrJcP8AXBQgYxyoSrqvliMBqiwC1X9Vb9m349ErmaJ dsiCDM7OZ6ugIzIkMCRxIKIl9p775g3Oql0nKDp9RaBjY3kzq79Sdpzai1m5jwJX GMj1bhG+OuV6hM44WCCPuWt12zG1+30rOd9jHYlLM2foQwEh3Yp0lqgOJNT6arU9 106zB4sNm33+hsNmM+lsM8JjmVb28NQTJ16nfaBg0SWb9+2jNK/mAXtqZ0n+jPj3 oI2ZUfJXNJMX+EeYO69LCFaJPCiRbn3nX+6uDFFKliso6e3w9tojobocB7AsuWmK NsiT8DqDiJ0SzIjVHKewc5Jwm3ckA5qMLQlEBPzhtd1tDfOZ39b/sf+DwJnw0qzU dLMSVFcBK/IdEmQ37IYYMMhni1/sAmaNOLwtqJ4Ox5zq+RazazO1uKifP/6zZhD/ qtww7+YE8z+EZiq9qhlgOtQzG1dnNuZpOCNDJAMVdAMi72YSrbghfEz7CYdwSTva 9vWFltvRhb2Bc6AqsorumCS31vxWsW9aQOR9rZSe8YSgYq/A1nlF4++OA8OJVbx1 yRAjK9zND7wFwBcJz/GS1lSzhrsHQ1aidKQR40rBqx7bwepVWNTHXOv4v+xBKU4w XdYucAQHMWdZKugdR8qf
    =bCg1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Paul Adrian Glaubitz@21:1/5 to Niels Thykier on Wed Sep 21 00:50:01 2016
    To: debian-ports@lists.debian.org
    Copy: debian-release@lists.debian.org
    Copy: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --bwOPGPFUk1EHlmixEJpS4SCMBBipFWjH9
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
    - powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)

    I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
    maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.

    Adrian

    --
    .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
    : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
    `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
    `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


    --bwOPGPFUk1EHlmixEJpS4SCMBBipFWjH9--

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX4a5TAAoJEHQmOzf1tfkTy4AQAKCQwyfXHTiMD7srWjUa6ugv zH0gpZ2tM6N/PuOS5O2o+dIPf/MLWrKG8LF1bF2rBurPqYSdfhqb+97TqbIPjnJC +KQw106Wv1Hn/wF8e50nZRTpRswk2CfYAD25IO8uhaSLD8WjW6ai1PHRsKLLBhRD eHhoxtZ7KJLBeCP34qhA6Il7INFWxNOqn1pvS01rDH08+8o0YY15wgZddnnofS+/ ee6zNRTvHYMEHtgJUPc0dL5F+bWNRUsm7zIRSn1q1UWhUkl8AcGvj+jbCNi+ijBo qrSUWnYZrZKM9kPB6bAg5rTnbz8AncEAdE7vxw3qf9A4JQchIzwPIV8hrMjxXuZq kYwF5p8iIdwsx922usbvXrIIHxTYvkBPnEbMsZUVio5DVbNUfu+nnJvuh5glLp3X ZytnES2KaIjaaNFYmO9VcBAsOg1xn+NFBo21pdRsJvosqYQhdLR36yeJ9dAue3Fv Fjdkr2LLEKDfhFxFxFibo9lw2g+jjbbm7GGMp9SJtxhUc7vW4d/rkJFzkZSYmHHV ahMbBUF6z+Qjt9ZAIZ8CywM3pypaXyik6CRtaXMo6Kom69EHAeWcLVK23u23ee1E hFUZa9YA3uux1KaS4QA7CKWZi/PzHxRhIMPi2FJ9GorH4CmOyr9y/XRnwRg+sdRg
    /
  • From Mathieu Malaterre@21:1/5 to Matthias Klose on Fri Sep 30 10:10:02 2016
    Hi all,

    On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
    On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
    On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
    - powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)

    I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
    maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.

    No, you are not maintaining powerpcspe as a release architecture, and that's something different than building packages for some of the ports architectures.
    If you can get powerpcspe accepted as a release architecture, then maybe you gain some credibility to maintain another release architecture ;)

    [Let's assume that we can't find a powerpc porter in time for Stretch.]

    1. Will `powperpc` automatically be downgraded to simple port ? Or is
    this also not automated and the port may simply be removed (eg. sparc)
    ?
    2. Apart from loosing the automatic debian-installer stuff, what else
    are we going to loose in that scenario ?

    Thanks much for pointers !

    -M

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)