Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

in time for inclusion in buster. On behalf of the release team, Niels Thykier signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

Niels Thykier: > Hi, > > As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for > PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures! > * It is a substantial hardening feature > * Upstream has vastly reduced the performance penalty for x86 > * The ma

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

Adrian Bunk: > [ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] > > [...] > > Is https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html the up-to-date > information available to you, and the "candidate" line how a decision > would look like based on the current

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Niels Thykier: > [...] > > As for "porter qualification" > = > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for > Jessie. However, we

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Mathieu Malaterre: > Hi all, > > [...] > > [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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

ni...@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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Kurt Roeckx: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote: >> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change >>also apply to this port? [0] > > If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it? > > It will also default to tell the linker to

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Martin Michlmayr: > * ni...@thykier.net [2016-08-17 22:05]: >> 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following >> before Friday, the 9th of September: > > Can you please specify where to respond to? I don't think dozens of > emails to -ports and -devel make

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Philipp Kern: > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>s390x >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. >>- s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. &

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Steven Chamberlain: > Hi, > Hi, > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state >> in Debian. >> We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >> Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: > Hi Niels! > > On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. >> >> I kindly ask you to: >> >> * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting St

[Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters. While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with the architecture qualifications. For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x -

Re: Potential issues for most ports (Was: Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))

On 2013-11-03 16:03, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 03/11/13 10:54, Niels Thykier wrote: Come to think of it; maybe we should have a BTS page for each of the ports (e.g. a pseudo package in the BTS). We've had this on kfreebsd, due it to having been a release goal: http://udd.debian.org

Re: Potential issues for most ports (Was: Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))

On 2013-11-03 23:04, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: [...] I suppose a sponsor-only DD could be sufficient, provided that the sponsor knows the porters well enough to be willing to sign off on e.g. access to porter boxes. I guess

Potential issues for most ports (Was: Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))

On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote: Niels Thykier writes (Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)): [...] As mentioned we are debating whether the 5 DDs requirement still makes sense. Would you say that we should abolish the requirement for DD porters completely? I.e. Even

Re: Potential issues for most ports

On 2013-11-03 15:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Niels Thykier dixit: [...] Until we have a clear definition of actively maintained ports, I would recommend porters to err on the side of being verbose over being silent. I’ve held off on the m68k side because I think the role call was only

Re: Potential issues for most ports

On 2013-11-03 16:54, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2013-11-03 15:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Niels Thykier dixit: [...] Until we have a clear definition of actively maintained ports, I would recommend porters to err on the side of being verbose over being silent. I’ve held off

Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)

On 2013-10-29 16:05, Ian Jackson wrote: Niels Thykier writes (Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)): Results of porter roll-call === ... Summary table: Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total

Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)

On 2013-10-19 16:38, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote: Hello, On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 05:01:31PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: [snip freeze policy] Hi, I s/-arm/-ports/'ed the CC, since I figured the rest of the porters would find the answer equally interesting. Results of porter roll-call

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

Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)

On 2013-09-01 09:33, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an overview of which of the porters are (still

Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an overview of which of the porters are