On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > [ adding debian-powerpc ]
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > > Niels Thykier schrieb:
> > > > If I am to support powerpc as a re
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > [ adding debian-powerpc ]
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > > Niels Thykier schrieb:
> > > > If I am to support powerpc as a re
On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> [ adding debian-powerpc ]
>
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > Niels Thykier schrieb:
> > > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I
> > > need to know that there are *active*
[ adding debian-powerpc ]
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Niels Thykier schrieb:
> > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I
> > need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to
> > keeping it in the working. Pe
On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 10/01/2016 02:17 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very
> > > active because it's part of the PowerPC kernel which is maintained by
> > > IBM.
> >
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 22:34 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> 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 ke
On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
[...]
> > I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will
> > not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for
> > powerpc to remain
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> 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 i
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
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
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.
For somewhat personal reasons I'm interest
On 09/23/2016 03:54 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> No, you are not maintaining powerpcspe as a release architecture, and that's
> something different than building packages for some of the ports
> architectures.
> If you can get powerpcspe accepted as a release architecture, then maybe you
> gain som
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 powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.
No, you are not maintaini
On 09/21/2016 08:41 AM, Riku Voipio wrote:
> AFAIK Address space randomizing is not really helpful on 32 bit
> architectures - there is just not that many places to randomize to[1].
Well, sure, but there's still a huge difference in an explot with
100% reliability, or an exploit that will just cr
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:16:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Over all, most people (who answered it) was positive towards the switch.
> Based on this, I suspect that if we make PIE default in Stretch, then
> we will do it for all architectures. That said, you will be notified if
> that defaul
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.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian
ni...@thykier.net:
> Hi,
>
> Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release
> architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release
> architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of
> 2020), please respond with a signed email containin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:05:06 +0200
ni...@thykier.net wrote:
> Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release
> architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release
> architectures] for the entire lifetime of
Hi!
On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 08:22:09 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
> >> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change
> >>also apply to this port? [0]
> >
> > If -fPIE is the default
Hi,
2016-08-21 8:22 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier :
> Kurt Roeckx:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
>>> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change
>>>also apply to this port? [0]
>>
>> If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it
Kurt Roeckx:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
>> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change
>>also apply to this port? [0]
>
> If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it?
>
> It will also default to tell the linker to use
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change
>also apply to this port? [0]
If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it?
It will also default to tell the linker to use -pie, but then
don't do
Martin Michlmayr:
> * ni...@thykier.net [2016-08-17 22:05]:
>> 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following
>> before Friday, the 9th of September:
>
> Can you please specify where to respond to? I don't think dozens of
> emails to -ports and -devel make any sense.
>
Ah,
* ni...@thykier.net [2016-08-17 22:05]:
> 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following
> before Friday, the 9th of September:
Can you please specify where to respond to? I don't think dozens of
emails to -ports and -devel make any sense.
Maybe debian-release with CC debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release
architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release
architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of
2020), please respond with a sign
35 matches
Mail list logo
