Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: > [...] > > Brilliant. We will start the testing bootstrap soon. > > Cheers, > Emilio > We have completed our first successful Britney run with mips64el enabled in testing. Please note that Britney does *not* yet enforce installability of mips64el. Nor should you

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 04/07/16 07:35, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2016-06-16 10:25, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> On 2016-06-16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: * mips64el (NEW) - No DSA buildd (RT blocker) >>> >>> As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port >>> hardware, those machines are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-16 10:25, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2016-06-16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: > > > * mips64el (NEW) > > >- No DSA buildd (RT blocker) > > > > As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port > > hardware, those machines are DSA. > > We also have the confirmation

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 16/06/16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: > I have put up the classical wiki page for Stretch at: > https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch > > Please review and comment if required. That page is now outdated wrt mips concerns (see below). Do we need to duplicate the information that

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > (sorry for jumping in late here) > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

(sorry for jumping in late here) On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 26/06/16 14:18, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a small update about mips64el (and mips). > > On 2016-06-16 10:25, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> On 2016-06-16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: * mips64el (NEW) - No DSA buildd (RT blocker) >>> >>> As far as I can see mips64el is using

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, Here is a small update about mips64el (and mips). On 2016-06-16 10:25, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2016-06-16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: > > > * mips64el (NEW) > > >- No DSA buildd (RT blocker) > > > > As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port > > hardware,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

in theory it should be easier to port applications to ppc64el, especially software that is not maintained by Debian (like various commercial or not packaged apps and libraries), because it makes a little bit more similar to x86 and amd64. Power8 hardware isn't terribly expensive (and there are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-20 10:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to >> support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we? > > Well it is getting there. The

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:05 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Also I suspect many users of 64 bit capable freescale chips > (e5500 and e6500 cores) are running 32 bit powerpc since they > don't have enough ram to actually really gain anything > from going to 64 bit, and the ppc64 port isn't done yet. Well,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to > support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we? Well it is getting there. -- Len Sorensen

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 08:35:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port? Yes. The only ones that don't are the Freescale 85xx and P10[12]x chips, which are powerpcspe due to using the e500 core. All the 83xx and 82xx chips which are still

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

> In other words, i don't think a s390x box will ever just die. I'm sure “death” encompasses all events which might lead Debian to lose access to relevant hardware. It's not just about faults with a piece of equipment.

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

* Lennart Sorensen: > There are a lot of 32bit powerpc chips still going into embedded systems > being built today. They are not going away anytime soon. Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port?

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 19 June 2016 at 02:25, William ML Leslie wrote: > > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/18/2016 06:25 PM, William ML Leslie wrote: > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package > maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release architectures, which detracts from other work that needs to be

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

I run all sorts of PowerPC machines with various versions of Debian and I don't see that coming to end anytime soon. These are excellent and reliable machines. Biggest issues/hurdles are just graphics at the moment for both ATI/AMD and Nvidia cards, but even if that is never resolved/fixed or

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, Dan DeVoto wrote: In addition to the debian powerpc mailing list, powerpc users are active on the Ubuntu forums. I'm running Debian Sid on a Powerbook and everything works except 3D acceleration. I don't see a need to drop it. I hope that my iBook G3 will serve me for years to come!

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> wrote: > > Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification > To: "Hector Oron" <hector.o...@gmail.com> > Cc: "Niels Thykier" <ni...@thykier.net>, "DSA" > <debian-ad...@

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:04:12AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > The debian-powerpc@l.d.o mailing list is active so I would say it > still has some users. I have been using partch.d.o for doing some work > on PowerPC. I posted a summary of work people have been doing on this > port lately: >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-15 00:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist colledge. At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE joined with indication that Open

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: > > * mips64el (NEW) > >- No DSA buildd (RT blocker) > > As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port > hardware, those machines are DSA. We also have the confirmation that the UTM-8 machines sent by Imagination Technologies

RE: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Here too all new amiga Ng are PPC with last generations of gpu pcie Amd boards and we are using linux expecially Debian. Luigi From: herminio.hernande...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:02:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification To: hector.o...@gmail.com CC

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Hector, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Hector Oron wrote: [...] > While working out ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I > believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a > personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

I know there are still powerpc users who run Debian. I am one of them and love to see it continue. How can I help? Thanks! On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Hector Oron wrote: > [Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and r...@debian.org] > > Hello, > > 2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

[Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and r...@debian.org] Hello, 2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier : > 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. Excellent! Thanks

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 18:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , > which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist > colledge. > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use > resources hosted by Marist. > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14 June 2016 at 20:22, wrote: > On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >>> Philipp Kern: >>> > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: 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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > There's a few projects that have abandoned claiming to support > anything below ARMv7. The one that comes to mind most readily is > libv8, but there have been others. I don't see libv8 on powerpc either. Don't think it has ever

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/14/2016 09:06 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > Yeah, but that's unfortunately one of the universal truths of this port. > I mean in theory sometimes they turn up on eBay and people try to make > them work[1]. Hilarious talk, thanks a lot for the link :). > It also seems true for other ports where

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14/06/16 12:36, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:38:06AM -0700, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >> * Steve McIntyre [2016-06-06 15:14]: >>> However, I will admit (again) that armel is starting to lose upstream >>> support in some cases. I'm tempted to suggest that

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:38:06AM -0700, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >* Steve McIntyre [2016-06-06 15:14]: >> However, I will admit (again) that armel is starting to lose upstream >> support in some cases. I'm tempted to suggest that Stretch should be >> the last release for armel

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14/06/16 09:06, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> 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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > 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,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:39:46PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >Steve McIntyre: >> [...] > - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2) > I think this is outdated, my understanding is that armel and armhf are now using a shared buildd pool. I see arnold, hoiby,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Steve McIntyre: > [...] - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2) >>> I think this is outdated, my understanding is that armel and armhf are >>> now using a shared buildd pool. I see arnold, hoiby, henze, hasse, >>> antheil and hartmann recently active on the armel

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. > > What is the current DSA

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 07/06/16 19:38, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Steve McIntyre [2016-06-06 15:14]: However, I will admit (again) that armel is starting to lose upstream support in some cases. I'm tempted to suggest that Stretch should be the last release for armel for that reason.

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

* Steve McIntyre [2016-06-06 15:14]: > However, I will admit (again) that armel is starting to lose upstream > support in some cases. I'm tempted to suggest that Stretch should be > the last release for armel for that reason. Which upstream problems do you see? And do you know

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

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. What is the current DSA concern about s390x? Kind regards

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 8:56 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: 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

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:01:48AM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >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,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 11:01:26PM +0100, Wookey wrote: >On 2016-06-05 13:38 +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> peter green: >> > On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> >> all arm ports have DSA concerns. >> >> >> > Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still >> > a

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:38:06PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >peter green: >> On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> all arm ports have DSA concerns. >>> >> Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still >> a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 23:10 +0100, peter green wrote: > On 05/06/16 23:01, Wookey wrote: > >>Ok, so a total of 6 shared between the two architectures? > Thats what it looks like to me. > >And I think we are building armhf on the arm64 build machines too? > I don't think so. At least I see no evidence of

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 14:46 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > > [0]: I'd define core packages as everything needed to install, boot, and > > then build packages on that arch. The rebootstrap project gives us some > > idea of what those are; but add to that the kernel and any bootloaders. > > Being able to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 23:01, Wookey wrote: Ok, so a total of 6 shared between the two architectures? Thats what it looks like to me. And I think we are building armhf on the arm64 build machines too? I don't think so. At least I see no evidence of it on buildd.debian.org .

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 13:38 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > peter green: > > On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> all arm ports have DSA concerns. > >> > > Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still > > a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found on the

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 10:01, Niels Thykier wrote: > 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: [ snip ] > * mips64el (NEW)

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

peter green: > On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> all arm ports have DSA concerns. >> > Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still > a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found on the topic > said it was "being worked on", sledge whats the

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 13:26 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > sh4: > > > The two biggest issues with sh4 are currently with binutils and the > kernel. binutils has problems when building Qt5: > There is in fact another big elephant in the room, which I have mentioned several

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

thanks to everyone explaining arch:any to me :) -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 11:01, Niels Thykier wrote: all arm ports have DSA concerns. Is there a current reference to what these concerns are? Is there still a lack of out of band management? (the old mail I found on the topic said it was "being worked on", sledge whats the status here?) are there

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

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 the most important ones. Is there

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 Stretch. > > To give some insight what's

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 13:00, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: ppc64: This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have over 11.000 packages installed [...] sparc64: We are close to 11.000

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> ppc64: >> >> This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We >> have over >> 11.000 packages installed > [...] >> sparc64: >> We are close to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm not sure whether you are talking about source or binary packages but > sid/amd64 has over 24000 source packages and over 5 binary packages, > so I would call the above "on par". Or what am I missing? There are just around 12,000 source

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > ppc64: > > This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have > over > 11.000 packages installed [...] > sparc64: > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. I'm not sure whether you are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

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 Stretch. To give some insight what's happening in Debian Ports. We have two