Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: > [...] > > On the other hand, some packages dropped support for PowerPC32 like Mono > > but this isn't a concern for most users,

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Adrian, On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:34 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: [...] > On the other hand, some packages dropped support for PowerPC32 like Mono > but this isn't a concern for most users, I would say. [...] Thanks very much for stepping up as porter, you

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/30/2016 09:04 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > 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 ended up with a

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 ended up with a completely broken and

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > 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 ended up

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: > On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the >> removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports >> (assuming someone is willing to support it there). > > So, I take this as a

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > [Let's assume that we can't find a powerpc porter in time for Stretch.] Two potential porters stepped up, who might or might not be accepted. > 1. Will `powperpc` automatically be downgraded to simple port ? Or is > this also

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

[CCing porters, please also leave feedback in #835148 for non-release architectures] On 29.09.2016 21:39, Niels Thykier wrote: > 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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the > removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports > (assuming someone is willing to support it there). So, I take this as a "no" for the offer from me and

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

You have a porter for PowerPC. See email from Adrian. ;-) -- Christian Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:03, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > Hi all, > >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Hi all, On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Matthias Klose 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