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

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

[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 -

Bug#779074: kfreebsd-defaults: Please stop building on linux architectures

Source: kfreebsd-defaults Version: 10+1 Severity: serious Hi, The kfreebsd-10 package stopped building its binaries on linux architectures. However, kfreebsd-defaults still builds its binaries for linux and they depend on (now missing) linux version of the kfreebsd-10 binaries. The end result

Re: Bug#778366: unblock: kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn274115-2

Control: tags -1 d-i On 2015-02-14 04:22, Michael Gilbert wrote: Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Severity: normal x-debbugs-cc: debian-b...@lists.debian.org Please consider unblocking kfreebsd-10. It fixes 2 security issues:

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-02-19 17:32, Robert Millan wrote: On 29/01/2014 23:03, Niels Thykier wrote: I believe this is a first for us (as well) - at the very least, I won't claim to have all the answers. Anyhow, as I see it, we want you to choose a set of supported packages, then we will probably ask how

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-02-14 00:32, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote: Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package have rather long reaching consequences. In the concrete example, GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3 goes, (more or less) all of

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-02-14 00:23, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 12/02/14 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote: kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures are at 96%[1]. Here kFreeBSD has increased in the past quarter from ~89.5% to almost, but not quite 90%. I'm a little puzzled you

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-01-30 16:23, Robert Millan wrote: On 30/01/2014 00:03, Niels Thykier wrote: @Robert: Re your Could you elaborate?. I haven't forgotten it, but I out of time - so I will get back to you on that. It's ok. I wanted more detail both on the problem and on the solution. You just

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

On 2014-01-29 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote: On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote: * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 - On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able to be on par with other release architectures in terms

Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status

On 2014-01-11 23:10, Robert Millan wrote: On 11/01/2014 21:32, Niels Thykier wrote: As for #712848, the latest comment sent by Petr suggested that the test might be incorrect when applied to kqueue. I guess you are referring to comment #25 here? Quote: [...] Seems like no one picked

Re: gdm3

On 2014-01-12 00:01, Robert Millan wrote: On 11/01/2014 22:54, Robert Millan wrote: Do you have an idea of the consequences of making it linux-only? If it is just using (e.g.) xdm instead of and kFreeBSD losing a couple of packages, it will probably not be much of an issue. But then, I

Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status

On 2014-01-05 12:22, Robert Millan wrote: On 05/01/2014 10:30, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2013-12-16 23:32, Robert Millan wrote: On 15/12/2013 13:34, Niels Thykier wrote: It would probably be good if you (i.e. the BSD porters) could start a dialogue with the GNOME maintainers and figure out

Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status

On 2013-11-30 11:46, Robert Millan wrote: On 28/11/2013 21:49, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 28/11/13 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote: kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this state. We will review

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

Re: libbatik-java change led to uninstallables on kfreebsd

Package: libbatik-java Version: 1.7+dfsg-2 Severity: serious On Jun 22, 2012 22:50 Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org wrote: Hi, Hi, libbatik-java's dependencies were changed recently like so: Package: libbatik-java Architecture: all -Depends: openjdk-6-jre-headless |

Bug#657598: freebsd-libs: FTBFS on kfreebsd-i386

Package: freebsd-libs Version: 8.3~svn229725-3 Severity: serious Hi, Log from the buildd[1]: Warning: Object directory not changed from original /build/buildd-freebsd-libs_8.3~svn229725-3-kfreebsd-i386-AkvhUR/freebsd-libs-8.3~svn229725/lib/libcam cc -Wall -g -pipe -fPIC -I.

Please build test libsysactivity 0.5.4-5 on x86 BSD machine with 4 GB RAM

causes build +failures due to false positives. + + -- Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:11:25 +0200 + libsysactivity (0.5.4-4) unstable; urgency=low * Applied patch from upstream to fix an issue with calculating memory diff --git a/debian/patches/disable-cpu-idle-test.patch