Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > [ adding debian-powerpc ] > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > > > If I am to

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > [ adding debian-powerpc ] > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > > > If I am to

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > [ adding debian-powerpc ] > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I > > > need to know

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

[ adding debian-powerpc ] On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I > > need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to > > keeping it

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 10/01/2016 02:17 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very > > > active because it's part of the PowerPC kernel which is maintained by > > > IBM. > >

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 22:34 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > 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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: [...] > > I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will > > not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for > > powerpc to

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > 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

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

On 09/20/2016 05:46 PM, 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 already > maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. > Thank you Adrian

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: 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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

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 already > maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. For somewhat personal reasons I'm

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/23/2016 03:54 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > No, you are not maintaining powerpcspe as a release architecture, and that's > something different than building packages for some of the ports > architectures. > If you can get powerpcspe accepted as a release architecture, then maybe you > gain

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

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 already > maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. No, you are not

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 09/21/2016 08:41 AM, Riku Voipio wrote: > AFAIK Address space randomizing is not really helpful on 32 bit > architectures - there is just not that many places to randomize to[1]. Well, sure, but there's still a huge difference in an explot with 100% reliability, or an exploit that will just

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:16:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Over all, most people (who answered it) was positive towards the switch. > Based on this, I suspect that if we make PIE default in Stretch, then > we will do it for all architectures. That said, you will be notified if > that

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

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 already maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer -

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:05:06 +0200 ni...@thykier.net wrote: > 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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Hi! On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 08:22:09 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > 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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

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 use -pie, but then don't do

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