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 That page is now outdated wrt mips concerns (see below).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

Hello, all. Sorry for the late response hereI believe I can offer some s390x resources for the project if they are still needed. DJ On 06/14/2016 05:37 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: On 14 June 2016 at 20:22, wrote: On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote:

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

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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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 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

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

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