Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-07-07 Thread YunQiang Su
Niels Thykier  于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道:
>
> 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.
>
> Summary of the current concerns and issues:
>  * DSA have announced a blocking issue for armel and armhf (see below)
>  * Concerns from DSA about ppc64el and s390x have been carried over from
>stretch.
>  * Concerns from the GCC maintainers about armel, armhf, mips, mips64el
>and mipsel have been carried over from stretch.
>
> If the issues and concerns from you or your team are not up to date,
> then please follow up to this email (keeping debian-release@l.d.o and
> debian-ports@l.d.o in CC to ensure both parties are notified).
>
> Whilst porters remain ultimately responsible for ensuring the
> architectures are ready for release, we do expect that you / your team
> are willing to assist with clarifications of the concerns and to apply
> patches/changes in a timely manner to resolve the concerns.
>
>
> List of blocking issues by architecture
> ===
>
> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
> table.
>
> armel/armhf:
> 
>
>  * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020.  armhf VM
>support uncertain. (DSA)
>- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
>
>
> [DSA Sprint report]:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/02/msg4.html
>
>
> List of concerns for architectures
> ==
>
> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
> table.
>
>  * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent on sponsors for
>hardware.
>(Raised by DSA; carried over from stretch)
>
>  * Concern for armel and armhf: only secondary upstream support in GCC
>(Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch)
>
>  * Concern for mips, mips64el, mipsel and ppc64el: no upstream support
>in GCC
>(Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch)
>

This is a misunderstanding as MIPS company had some unrest in recent half year.
Currently we are stable now, and the shape of gcc upstream is also good.

>
> Architecture status
> ===
>
> These are the architectures currently being built for buster:
>
>  * Intel/AMD-based: amd64, i386
>  * ARM-based: arm64, armel, armhf
>  * MIPS-based: mips, mipsel, mips64el

We are plan to drop mips(eb) and keep mipsel/mips64el.

>  * Other: ppc64el, s390x
>
> If the blocking issues cannot be resolved, affected architectures are at
> risk of removal from testing before buster is frozen.
>
> We are currently unaware of any new architectures likely to be ready in
> time for inclusion in buster.
>
> On behalf of the release team,
> Niels Thykier
>


-- 
YunQiang Su



Debian/MIPSeb: proposal to drop mipseb port?

2018-07-07 Thread YunQiang Su
Hi, folks,
due to lack of enough man power and build machines for 3 mips* port at
the same time, I think that now it is time for us to have a talk about
dropping mips32eb support now.

mips32eb, named mips, in our namespace, is used by few people now, at
least compare with mipsel/mips64el.

The reason we keep it till now is
   1) some people are still using it.
   2) it is the only port 32bit and EB now.

In fact I don't know anybody is using Debian's mips32eb port.
If you are using it, please tell us.



Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-05-08 Thread Yunqiang Su
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
 With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
 the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
 architectures.  The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends 
 already
 point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures.  Issue #746805 tracks the
 gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version
 change.

 The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in
 bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time 
 in
 March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2].  Another
 test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other
 compiler regressions on these architectures.

 I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot
 packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test 
 rebuild
 for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC 
 testsuite
 look okish for every architecture.

I set a build farm with gcc-4.9 for mips64el.
It works well: it has no more failures than your amd64 one.
All the buildlogs can be found in
   http://mips.wicp.net:9998/mips2/buildlog/

I noticed ctpp2 failed due to symbols problems on both
  amd64(pbuilder) and mips64el(sbuild).

It seems that you didn't report bug on it.


 I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated.
 Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions
 e.g. #746883).  Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be
 found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g.
 Fedora 21).

 If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan 
 to
 make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of 
 May,
 beginning of June.

 Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 
 4.8)
 will be filed.

   Matthias

 [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
 [2]
 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org




-- 
Yunqiang Su


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAKcpw6Ve=nbetyywgw+qm99bohki2q+1dvxw6fzazfna9wc...@mail.gmail.com



Re: Porting OpenJDK 8

2014-04-20 Thread Yunqiang Su
Great, let me try it on mips64el.
I met some trouble for openjdk-6 and openjdk-7.
Wish openjdk-8 works :-)

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 OpenJDK 8 is being packaged [1] and I'm looking for porters willing to
 try and compile it on other architectures. So far it builds fine on
 amd64 and some work has started for kFreeBSD. No other architecture has
 been tested yet, so any help is welcome.

 Thank you,

 Emmanuel Bourg

 [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-java/openjdk-8.git


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53511469.2090...@apache.org




-- 
Yunqiang Su


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cakcpw6u_kz_emc7bfuhvgczbbf2bzufatpjfd0r9wdtzoxf...@mail.gmail.com



Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing

2014-02-05 Thread YunQiang Su

在 2014年1月21日,下午9:51,Aníbal Monsalve Salazar ani...@debian.org 写道:

 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:43:55PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
 Am 16.01.2014 13:31, schrieb Aníbal Monsalve Salazar:
 For mips/mipsel, I - fix toolchain issues together with other
 developers at ImgTec
 
 It is nice to see such a commitment, however in the past I didn't see
 any such contributions.
 
 Hello doko,
 
 At my current job, we are working on fixing mips* bugs including
 possible compiler errors. As an example, I recently run tests to try to
 find tool chain errors for packages that on non-Debian distro were
 failing to build. So, at least so far, I'm working on that.
 
 Regards,
 
 Aníbal

  Hi,

  I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
  to continue this for the lifetime of the jessie release:

  For mipsel/mips64el and maybe mips/mips64, I
  - test most packages on this architecture
  - fix toolchain issues
  - triage arch-specific bugs
  - fix arch-related bugs
  - maintaining rebuild test

  I am a DM

  Yunqiang Su


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: gcc-4.9 uploaded to experimental

2014-01-12 Thread Yunqiang Su
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
 gcc-4.9 is uploaded to experimental, asking the porters to watch for build
 failures and corresponding patches. See

 https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.9suite=experimental

 These are already fixed in the vcs.

  - fixed the gospec.c ftbfs on archs without ld.gold
  - fixed the g++ b-d on armel/armhf

The build log on mips64el can be found from:
  http://mips64el.debian.net/attempted/gcc-4.9-mips64el.log.xz


 Matthias


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52cfd843.1010...@debian.org




-- 
Yunqiang Su


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAKcpw6VzmezVP+6LFsb7Afs=xmhs9e295ybriksp0sn7aa0...@mail.gmail.com