Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:58:25PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2013-10-14 10:06, Sven Luther wrote: [...] I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter. I am not familiar with your history, so I cannot comment on that part. I was kicked out of debian 7 years ago, due to a personal conflict with a couple of other DDs. I have left this behind me, and i think 7 years is enough for everyone to let this behind it, and 6 month ago, i was allowed again to post on debian lists, and there apparently was no negative feedback on that. Still I don't want to cause problems, even though i had one nice return to my mail which warmed my hearth, so before you add me or something, could you please check with the DPL or ask on debian-private or something to be sure this is ok. If you like more details please ask some other DDs who were there at the time, i think it is not my place to speak about it, and as said, it is history for me. I haven't brought this up on d-private nor with the DPL, nor have I any intention of doing so. I have no desire in ripping up old wounds; sorry. No problem, i was maybe beeing over-cautious, i suggested this just so we double check that there is no opposition to it. If you have been unbanned (as you seem to claim) it sounds like you have been given another chance. At this time, I have no reason to second-guess that. So, if you can work with the current powerpc porters Ok. (and they with you), I see no reason to stand in your way of working with them. Well, as long as there is nobody else who will feel bad about this, i am fine with it. Obviously, I cannot promise you it will be easy or anything. If your stigmata is as bad as you suggest, you risk doing twice the work for half the pay[1] - not to mention having tread lighter than everyone else to avoid restarting the old conflict (or a fueling new one). Bah, it was 7 years ago, i hope those who had problems with me can but it aside, or whatever. Also, notice that back then, i didn't actually start the problems, but was the victim of it. True, i reacted badly to it, but i never started any problem. That said, it took me many years to come over it, which probably explains my over-cautious ways now. If you are ready and willing to work under these conditions; good, please roll up your sleeves and get started. If not, well, I wouldn't hold it against you, but then that is pretty much end-of-discussion for me. [...] So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome) in debian again. Assuming you can work with the current powerpc porter(s), I believe there should be no issue adding you as a non-DD porter for now. For now, I have not added you to my list, but feel free to let me know if I should ammend it. Well, i will most assuredly have no problem with working with anyone of good will, if you gave me (privately) the name of the porter and other volunteers, i could contact them to make sure they have no trouble with me (but back then i don't think there was any powerpc people with whom i had bad contact too, quite the contrary). The names of the porters were included in my original Results of the porter roll call mail (see the attachment), so they are already public available. Ah, sorry, i missed that. Debian should have a powerpc porterbox. However, I believe you will need a DD to sign off on you getting a guest account for those. I won't be able to help you here though. Alternatively, some of the other ppc porters might have an unofficial porterbox you can use. Will check with them. ~Niels [1] I suppose this is especially true if you want to become a DD. Well, this may be too early as of yet, and too go to this point, i would need to make sure there is no opposition to this. Let's make sure that the powerpc port is in good shape for now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131022133047.ga3...@plz.fr
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On 2013-10-14 10:06, Sven Luther wrote: [...] I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter. I am not familiar with your history, so I cannot comment on that part. I was kicked out of debian 7 years ago, due to a personal conflict with a couple of other DDs. I have left this behind me, and i think 7 years is enough for everyone to let this behind it, and 6 month ago, i was allowed again to post on debian lists, and there apparently was no negative feedback on that. Still I don't want to cause problems, even though i had one nice return to my mail which warmed my hearth, so before you add me or something, could you please check with the DPL or ask on debian-private or something to be sure this is ok. If you like more details please ask some other DDs who were there at the time, i think it is not my place to speak about it, and as said, it is history for me. I haven't brought this up on d-private nor with the DPL, nor have I any intention of doing so. I have no desire in ripping up old wounds; sorry. If you have been unbanned (as you seem to claim) it sounds like you have been given another chance. At this time, I have no reason to second-guess that. So, if you can work with the current powerpc porters (and they with you), I see no reason to stand in your way of working with them. Obviously, I cannot promise you it will be easy or anything. If your stigmata is as bad as you suggest, you risk doing twice the work for half the pay[1] - not to mention having tread lighter than everyone else to avoid restarting the old conflict (or a fueling new one). If you are ready and willing to work under these conditions; good, please roll up your sleeves and get started. If not, well, I wouldn't hold it against you, but then that is pretty much end-of-discussion for me. [...] So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome) in debian again. Assuming you can work with the current powerpc porter(s), I believe there should be no issue adding you as a non-DD porter for now. For now, I have not added you to my list, but feel free to let me know if I should ammend it. Well, i will most assuredly have no problem with working with anyone of good will, if you gave me (privately) the name of the porter and other volunteers, i could contact them to make sure they have no trouble with me (but back then i don't think there was any powerpc people with whom i had bad contact too, quite the contrary). The names of the porters were included in my original Results of the porter roll call mail (see the attachment), so they are already public available. I would need to get access to a debian/powerpc machine though, as i don't travel with a powerpc laptop anymore (my G4 powerbook hinges are broken and apple left powerpc), and i travel a lot. [...] Friendly, Sven Luther Debian should have a powerpc porterbox. However, I believe you will need a DD to sign off on you getting a guest account for those. I won't be able to help you here though. Alternatively, some of the other ppc porters might have an unofficial porterbox you can use. ~Niels [1] I suppose this is especially true if you want to become a DD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52654111.4030...@thykier.net
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:11:56PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2013-10-06 16:25, Sven Luther wrote: Hi Niels, Hey, (Dropping -devel and -ports in exchange for -powerpc; sounded like you weren't subscribed to -powerpc, so direct CC for you as well) Seem fine. I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter. I am not familiar with your history, so I cannot comment on that part. I was kicked out of debian 7 years ago, due to a personal conflict with a couple of other DDs. I have left this behind me, and i think 7 years is enough for everyone to let this behind it, and 6 month ago, i was allowed again to post on debian lists, and there apparently was no negative feedback on that. Still I don't want to cause problems, even though i had one nice return to my mail which warmed my hearth, so before you add me or something, could you please check with the DPL or ask on debian-private or something to be sure this is ok. If you like more details please ask some other DDs who were there at the time, i think it is not my place to speak about it, and as said, it is history for me. Based on the feedback I got so far we indeed (and still) only got one DD backing powerpc and my interpretation of that response is that Roger did not consider himself a main/full porter. So, I think the powerpc port would do well with more DDs backing it. So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome) in debian again. Assuming you can work with the current powerpc porter(s), I believe there should be no issue adding you as a non-DD porter for now. For now, I have not added you to my list, but feel free to let me know if I should ammend it. Well, i will most assuredly have no problem with working with anyone of good will, if you gave me (privately) the name of the porter and other volunteers, i could contact them to make sure they have no trouble with me (but back then i don't think there was any powerpc people with whom i had bad contact too, quite the contrary). I would need to get access to a debian/powerpc machine though, as i don't travel with a powerpc laptop anymore (my G4 powerbook hinges are broken and apple left powerpc), and i travel a lot. Also, i am not really sure of the amount of time i will be able to devote to debian, and i will have to take my powerpc hardware out of the storage area i put it in, but i guess it should be enough to do powerpc porting work, provided other folk help me out. That said, i am also interested in the powerpcspe port, as i am (slowly) working on a open-hardware Freescale P1010 based board. Time and devotion is probably the essence of this roll call. Above everything else, we really want to know whether there are still active people (or, rather, an active team) behind the ports, who can solve problems in a timely fashion. Well, it mostly depends on the amount and complexity of the problems :) And what timely means. From my experience as lead powerpc porter back then, there were usually no major problems, powerpc being quite mainstream. That said, i don't know upto what point the port still stays in good shape today. Anyway, please let me know if there is anything i can do. Friendly, Sven Luther [...] Ensuring there is an active team behind the powerpc is a must; having more active DDs behind it is currently a must[1]. I am sure there are other possible ways to help the ppc port, but those two are the only ones I am currently aware of. I would gladly become DD again in some future time, even if i don't think i will be taking as much responsability as i used to do, given my busy professional live. ~Niels [1] As mentioned in the mail you replied to, we are considering to revise the requirements for the number of DDs. But for now, the old requirement of 5 DDs still stand. Well, as said, powerpc used to be in pretty much good shape, and didn't require much work. I don't think there ever were 5 DDs being really needed to keep it in shape. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131014080616.ga16...@plz.fr
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On 2013-10-06 16:25, Sven Luther wrote: Hi Niels, Hey, (Dropping -devel and -ports in exchange for -powerpc; sounded like you weren't subscribed to -powerpc, so direct CC for you as well) I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter. I am not familiar with your history, so I cannot comment on that part. Based on the feedback I got so far we indeed (and still) only got one DD backing powerpc and my interpretation of that response is that Roger did not consider himself a main/full porter. So, I think the powerpc port would do well with more DDs backing it. So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome) in debian again. Assuming you can work with the current powerpc porter(s), I believe there should be no issue adding you as a non-DD porter for now. For now, I have not added you to my list, but feel free to let me know if I should ammend it. Also, i am not really sure of the amount of time i will be able to devote to debian, and i will have to take my powerpc hardware out of the storage area i put it in, but i guess it should be enough to do powerpc porting work, provided other folk help me out. That said, i am also interested in the powerpcspe port, as i am (slowly) working on a open-hardware Freescale P1010 based board. Time and devotion is probably the essence of this roll call. Above everything else, we really want to know whether there are still active people (or, rather, an active team) behind the ports, who can solve problems in a timely fashion. Anyway, please let me know if there is anything i can do. Friendly, Sven Luther [...] Ensuring there is an active team behind the powerpc is a must; having more active DDs behind it is currently a must[1]. I am sure there are other possible ways to help the ppc port, but those two are the only ones I am currently aware of. ~Niels [1] As mentioned in the mail you replied to, we are considering to revise the requirements for the number of DDs. But for now, the old requirement of 5 DDs still stand. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5259bb1c.3000...@thykier.net
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Hello, 2013/10/7 Riku Voipio riku.voi...@iki.fi: On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Wookey wrote: +++ Niels Thykier [2013-10-02 09:45 +0200]: armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) I am surprised not to see Riku Voipio and Hector Oron on this list as I know they help manage the buildds and Riku signs uploads. I don't know if they are trying to escape, or just being too slack to send mail :-) Sorry, I missed the fact that this request had a deadline. Anyways, I am available for arm related issues - just try not to use debian-devel to reach me, as I tend to just skim subjects here... I forgot about the deadline due to family release, but, sure, I plan to keep around helping out on the arm* ports or any other related Debian issues. Ocasionally, as time allows, I am also interested on mipsel, mips and powerpc (PS3) support. Please consider the following: +armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD), Hector Oron (DD) +armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD), Hector Oron (DD) I am around as-needed for mips/el and powerpc. Regards, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caodfweenvwswr-wuonb2edjkvo54wmnr0wtiaxx09ubvfyh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Wookey wrote: +++ Niels Thykier [2013-10-02 09:45 +0200]: armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) I am surprised not to see Riku Voipio and Hector Oron on this list as I know they help manage the buildds and Riku signs uploads. I don't know if they are trying to escape, or just being too slack to send mail :-) Sorry, I missed the fact that this request had a deadline. Anyways, I am available for arm related issues - just try not to use debian-devel to reach me, as I tend to just skim subjects here... Riku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131007102229.gb16...@afflict.kos.to
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Hi Niels, I don't know upto what point you are familiar with my history and its link to the powerpc port, but it pains me to see that the powerpc port is left with so few porters, and that it may mean the port being dropped. I also have not really followed the mailing lists since a long time, and don't know who is actually managing the powerpc port, but giving the (1) and 0.5 remark, i guess there is not a full porter. So given that, and provided debian may not see a problem again in me becoming active, i may be interested in becoming active again as powerpc maintainer. Not sure what category you can include me in though, and what the formalities would be should i become active (and welcome) in debian again. Also, i am not really sure of the amount of time i will be able to devote to debian, and i will have to take my powerpc hardware out of the storage area i put it in, but i guess it should be enough to do powerpc porting work, provided other folk help me out. That said, i am also interested in the powerpcspe port, as i am (slowly) working on a open-hardware Freescale P1010 based board. Anyway, please let me know if there is anything i can do. Friendly, Sven Luther On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:45:35AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] The (1) and .5 is from a I am not primarily a porter [...]-remark, so I wasn't sure how to count it. [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process. The Other column may include people who said they would like to become porters (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some active recruiting from the current porters. This is at least true for hurd-i386. The current policy says that we require 5 developers (i.e. DDs) for release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and hurd-i386 would pass this requirement. It is quite possible we need to revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do well to attract a few more (DD) porters. I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers. If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD] for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or corrections. At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet. I will do that in a couple of days. We will also follow up on this in the next bits from the release team. ~Niels [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the counting. You are free to make assumptions about whether that has affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly. Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] Roger Leigh: I am not primarily a porter [...]. armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD) hurd-i386: Samuel Thibault (DD), Barry deFreese (DD), Thomas Schwinge (!DD), Pino Toscano (DD), Svante Signell (!DD), Michael Banck (DD), Guillem Jover (DD), Zhang Cong (!DD) kfreebsd-amd64: Christoph Egger (DD), Axel Beckert (DD), Petr Salinger (!DD), Robert Millan (DD), Steven Chamberlain (!DD), Guillem Jover (DD) kfreebsd-i386: Christoph Egger (DD), Axel Beckert (DD), Petr Salinger (!DD),
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:06:01AM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:44:44 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs for the Perl 5.14 to Perl 5.18 transition. Part of the porter's job is to take care of that kind of things. Definitely. If that's not happening for sparc64 because nobody's actually taking care of the port, I don't see it as a viable candidate for the archive... *nod* One of the reasons why I'm trying to improve that... Looking at a recent build log on sparc64 it is obvious the chroots on at least one of the sparc64 buildds have not even been upgraded to have perl 5.18. So that one (and presumably the rest) is building packages against the old (no longer available) perl! It might be possible to set up a sparc64 chroot by bootstrapping from snapshot.d.o at a date a bit before the upload of perl 5.18, and then upgrading as much of the chroot as possible to as recently as possible from debian-ports, but even if that is done on a local machine and one rebuilds the relevant perl packages to get a fully upgradeable chroot one is still faced with buildds at debian-ports that will build packages against an obsolete perl. So I would suggest locating the buildd admins. The following lists a useful email address for that purpose: http://www.debian-ports.org/contacts Cheers Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131003073021.GY16401@omega
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:59:26AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: On 10/02/2013 09:45, Niels Thykier wrote: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- [...] sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. In addition gcc no longer supports 32bit sparc according to the architecture qualification notes for Squeeze[1] and Wheezy[2]. I would still like to see some proofs of this claim, as already asked multiple times. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131003204018.gb17...@ohm.rr44.fr
Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] The (1) and .5 is from a I am not primarily a porter [...]-remark, so I wasn't sure how to count it. [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process. The Other column may include people who said they would like to become porters (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some active recruiting from the current porters. This is at least true for hurd-i386. The current policy says that we require 5 developers (i.e. DDs) for release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and hurd-i386 would pass this requirement. It is quite possible we need to revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do well to attract a few more (DD) porters. I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers. If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD] for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or corrections. At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet. I will do that in a couple of days. We will also follow up on this in the next bits from the release team. ~Niels [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the counting. You are free to make assumptions about whether that has affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly. Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] Roger Leigh: I am not primarily a porter [...]. armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McInture (DD) hurd-i386: Samuel Thibault (DD), Barry deFreese (DD), Thomas Schwinge (!DD), Pino Toscano (DD), Svante Signell (!DD), Michael Banck (DD), Guillem Jover (DD), Zhang Cong (!DD) kfreebsd-amd64: Christoph Egger (DD), Axel Beckert (DD), Petr Salinger (!DD), Robert Millan (DD), Steven Chamberlain (!DD), Guillem Jover (DD) kfreebsd-i386: Christoph Egger (DD), Axel Beckert (DD), Petr Salinger (!DD), Robert Millan (DD), Steven Chamberlain (!DD), Guillem Jover (DD) mips: Graham Whaley (!DD), Andreas Barth (DD) mipsel: Graham Whaley (!DD), Andreas Barth (DD) powerpc: [Roger Leigh (DD)], Geoff Levand (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD) sparc: Axel Beckert (DD) Maybes for ia64 (?): Martin Lucina (!DD), Émeric MASCHINO (!DD), Mark Wickens (!DD) (Some inaccuracies can occur in the (xN) below; /me got confused and may have lost count for some of them) Items suggested in the roll call: * test packages: armel (x3), armhf (x4), hurd-i386 (x4), kfreebsd-amd64 (x6), kfreebsd-i386 (x6), mips, mipsel, powerpc (x3), sparc * fix toolchain issues: armel, armhf (x3), hurd-i386 (x3), mips, mipsel, powerpc (x2) * triage arch-specific bugs: armel (x3), armhf (x4), hurd-i386 (x4), kfreebsd-amd64 (x5), kfreebsd-i386 (x5), mips (x2), mipsel (x2), powerpc (x2), sparc * fix arch-related bugs: armel (x2), armhf (x4), hurd-i386 (x5), kfreebsd-amd64 (x5), kfreebsd-i386 (x5), mips (x2), mipsel (x2), powerpc (x2) * maintain buildds: armhf, hurd-i386 (x2), kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel Items suggested by porters in their mails: + test d-i when needed: hurd-i386, powerpc (x3) + maintain arch-related pkgs: kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 + maintain non-DSA porter box: hurd-i386 (x2), kfreebsd-amd64 + maintain production system of $arch: sparc/Wheezy
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 Today we had Jon Ward (Aardvark) (non-DD) from ARM Ltd show up on the #debian-arm IRC channel. He is still getting up to speed but plans to work on armhf stuff. I'm guessing we may get more people from ARM, IBM/open-power.org and other hardware industry organisations showing up over time. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6G4UaFVN6Erfyege7XBS18eh4zyjeJ-hus=ddw+p2g...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On 10/02/2013 09:45, Niels Thykier wrote: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- [...] sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. In addition gcc no longer supports 32bit sparc according to the architecture qualification notes for Squeeze[1] and Wheezy[2]. [1] http://release.debian.org/squeeze/arch_qualify.html#sparc-upstream [2] http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html#sparc-upstream So it might make sense to drop sparc in any case and add sparc64 if there are enough people interested. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/524be06e.2000...@debian.org
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Hi, [I've replaced debian-ports with debian-sparc in the recipients list] Niels Thykier wrote: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- […] sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 […] [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. Ansgar Burchardt wrote: So it might make sense to drop sparc in any case and add sparc64 if there are enough people interested. Well, count me in for sparc64 in general, too. I expect, too, that's where we're heading to anyway, and I don't expect too many differences. I though fear that we're not yet there: Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs for the Perl 5.14 to Perl 5.18 transition. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Sparc64#Bootstrapping_sparc64 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2013/10/msg1.html OTOH such issues were present in the past[3] of sparc64, too, back then with the transition from Perl 5.10 to Perl 5.12. [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2011/05/msg00030.html Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert a...@debian.org, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `-| 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:18:58PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 Today we had Jon Ward (Aardvark) (non-DD) from ARM Ltd show up on the #debian-arm IRC channel. He is still getting up to speed but plans to work on armhf stuff. I was just about to pipe up here. I have to state for the record that I will not be working on Debian stuff as an ARM employee, but in my own time. But yes, I have the keen to start contributing to armhf. I have been a Debian user (and occaisionally sysadmin) since 1995. Jon Ward ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131002093203.ga2...@fnord.org.uk
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Add me for armel. Bastien Le 2 oct. 2013 09:46, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net a écrit : Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] The (1) and .5 is from a I am not primarily a porter [...]-remark, so I wasn't sure how to count it. [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process. The Other column may include people who said they would like to become porters (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some active recruiting from the current porters. This is at least true for hurd-i386. The current policy says that we require 5 developers (i.e. DDs) for release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and hurd-i386 would pass this requirement. It is quite possible we need to revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do well to attract a few more (DD) porters. I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers. If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD] for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or corrections. At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet. I will do that in a couple of days. We will also follow up on this in the next bits from the release team. ~Niels [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the counting. You are free to make assumptions about whether that has affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly.
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
+++ Niels Thykier [2013-10-02 09:45 +0200]: Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) I am surprised not to see Riku Voipio and Hector Oron on this list as I know they help manage the buildds and Riku signs uploads. I don't know if they are trying to escape, or just being too slack to send mail :-) arm64: Wookey (DD), Steve McInture (DD) There are other DDs working on this too (Doko and Riku particularly), but again they are probably trying to avoid getting any more formal responsibilities. :-) Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131002150724.ge32...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Wookey wrote: +++ Niels Thykier [2013-10-02 09:45 +0200]: Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 armel: Wookey (DD), Gatis Visnevskis (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) armhf: Jeremiah Foster (!DD, but NM?), Wookey (DD), Justus Winter (!DD), Lennart Sorensen (!DD), Nobuhiro Iwamatsu (DD), Steve McIntyre (DD) I am surprised not to see Riku Voipio and Hector Oron on this list as I know they help manage the buildds and Riku signs uploads. I don't know if they are trying to escape, or just being too slack to send mail :-) arm64: Wookey (DD), Steve McInture (DD) There are other DDs working on this too (Doko and Riku particularly), but again they are probably trying to avoid getting any more formal responsibilities. :-) *grin* I guess so... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131002151044.gk14...@einval.com
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
I'm interesting in helping on ia64. I'm not fluent in ia64 assembly, but I can get around pretty well. I'm very experienced in C/C++/Java and debugging. I've got a fully functional system running Xorg/Mesa3D/sound, so I can reproduce, test, and fix issues as time permits. Patrick Baggett On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote: Hi, The final results are in: Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total ---++-++-++---++-- armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4 armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6 hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8 ia64 || *0* || 0 || 3 ||3 kfreebsd-amd64 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 kfreebsd-i386 || 4 || 0 || 2 ||6 mips || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 mipsel || 1 || 0 || 1 ||2 powerpc[1] || (1) || 0 || 2 || 2.5? s390x || *0* || 0 || 0 || *0* sparc[2] || 1 || 0 || 0 ||1 [1] The (1) and .5 is from a I am not primarily a porter [...]-remark, so I wasn't sure how to count it. [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be looking at 3 in the Other-column rather than 0. NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process. The Other column may include people who said they would like to become porters (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some active recruiting from the current porters. This is at least true for hurd-i386. The current policy says that we require 5 developers (i.e. DDs) for release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and hurd-i386 would pass this requirement. It is quite possible we need to revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do well to attract a few more (DD) porters. I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers. If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD] for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or corrections. At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet. I will do that in a couple of days. We will also follow up on this in the next bits from the release team. ~Niels [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the counting. You are free to make assumptions about whether that has affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly.
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:44:44 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs for the Perl 5.14 to Perl 5.18 transition. Part of the porter's job is to take care of that kind of things. If that's not happening for sparc64 because nobody's actually taking care of the port, I don't see it as a viable candidate for the archive... Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)
Him Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:44:44 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs for the Perl 5.14 to Perl 5.18 transition. Part of the porter's job is to take care of that kind of things. Definitely. If that's not happening for sparc64 because nobody's actually taking care of the port, I don't see it as a viable candidate for the archive... *nod* One of the reasons why I'm trying to improve that... Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert a...@debian.org, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `-| 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131002230600.gi3...@sym.noone.org
