* Riku Voipio:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Niels Thykier:
>>
>> > armel/armhf:
>> >
>> >
>> > * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>> >support uncertain. (DSA)
>> >- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
>>
>>
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:03:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> armel/armhf:
>
>
> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>support uncertain. (DSA)
>- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
>
> [DSA Sprint report]:
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Niels Thykier:
>
> > armel/armhf:
> >
> >
> > * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
> >support uncertain. (DSA)
> >- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
>
> Fedora is facing an issue
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:03:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> armel/armhf:
>>
>>
>> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>>support uncertain. (DSA)
>>- Source: [DSA
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
>
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König :
If the concerns are mostly about the hardware not being rackable, there
is a rackable NAS by Netgear:
https://www.netgear.com/business/products/storage/readynas/RN2120.aspx#tab-techspecs
This seems to be out of stock and discontinued, unfortunately.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> in addition, arm64 is usually speculative OoO (Cavium ThunderX V1
> being a notable exception) which means it's vulnerable to spectre and
> meltdown attacks, whereas 32-bit ARM is exclusively in-order. if you
> want
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Everyone, please avoid followups to debian-po...@lists.debian.org.
> Unless something is relevant to *all* architectures (hint: discussion of
> riscv or arm issues don't qualify), keep replies to the appropriate
> port-specific mailing
On 06/29/2018 10:41 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> wrote:
>
>>> In short, the hardware (development boards) we're currently using to
>>> build armel and armhf packages aren't up to our standards, and we
>>> really, really want them
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
>> i don't know: i'm an outsider who doesn't have the information in
>> short-term memory, which is why i cc'd the debian-riscv team as they
>> have current facts and knowledge foremost in their minds. which is
>> why i included them.
>
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
>
> > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-
> > updates
> >
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
>> what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
>
> I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-updates
> waiting for the
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:06 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 10:41 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
>> wrote:
>>
In short, the hardware (development boards) we're currently using to
build armel and armhf
On 06/27/2018 10:03 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for buster, we request
> that DSA, the security team and the toolchain maintainers review and
> update their list of known concerns for buster release architectures.
>
Everyone, please
14 matches
Mail list logo
