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, I would say.
> [...]
>
> Howe
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 f
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 have my vote !
However I need
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 complet
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 unbo
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 wit
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 "no"
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 no
[CCing porters, please also leave feedback in #835148 for non-release
architectures]
On 29.09.2016 21:39, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for
> PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures!
> * It is a substantial har
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 Christoph
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 au
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 Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 09/20/2016
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 already
>> maintaining
13 matches
Mail list logo
