* Florian Weimer:
>> * Concern for mips, mips64el, mipsel and ppc64el: no upstream support
>>in GCC
>>(Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch)
>
> I'm surprised to read this. ppc64el features prominently in the
> toolchain work I do (though I personally do not work on
This thread went OT talking about ports, but oh well…
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 04:03:25AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:46:21PM +0100, Gregor Riepl wrote:
> > The build and package delivery infrastructure should offer the same features
> > for both first and second class
[Oy vey, crosspost list from hell -- not sure how to trim...]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:46:21PM +0100, Gregor Riepl wrote:
> I do think this just reinforces the point that second-class architectures
> should have better, more robust support from the Debian project.
> For example, arch-specific
Hi Adrian
I do think this just reinforces the point that second-class architectures
should have better, more robust support from the Debian project.
For example, arch-specific packages most decidedly have a place in Debian
(although they should not be the norm). There will always be such
Hello!
On 12/9/18 3:18 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> To me it looks sometimes that Debian is used for testing by upstream, and for
> that the mips architectures don't need to be release architectures.
A note on this: If you decide to move MIPS to Debian Ports, you will make the
port unusable to
On 07.07.18 17:24, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Niels Thykier 于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道：
>> List of concerns for architectures
>> ==
>>
>> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
>> table.
>>
>> * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent
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
* 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]
>>
>>
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 06/27/2018 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
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, 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
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> armel/armhf:
>
>
> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>support uncertain. (DSA)
>- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
[other affected 32-bit architectures removed but still relevant]
... i'm
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
* 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 running armhf under virtualization on arm64:
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
