Hi Didier,
> Have we removed protocols' support in {old,}stable before?.
We have done that on a case-by-case basis via point updates in the past,
seems also fine here.
Cheers,
Moritz
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"
[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
Hi Florian,
2016-09-30 13:22 GMT+02:00 Florian Weimer :
> * Niels Thykier:
>
>> 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 hardening feature
>> * Upstream has vastly reduced the perf
* Niels Thykier:
> Florian Weimer:
>> * Niels Thykier:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Do you think that PIE-by-default makes BIND_NOW-by-default
>> unnecessary?
>>
>> (The argument is that with PIE, it is much more difficult to get a
>> controlled GOT write.)
>>
>
> Is this an implicit "Why did you not in
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
Florian Weimer:
> * Niels Thykier:
>
>> [...]
>
> Do you think that PIE-by-default makes BIND_NOW-by-default
> unnecessary?
>
> (The argument is that with PIE, it is much more difficult to get a
> controlled GOT write.)
>
Is this an implicit "Why did you not include BIND_NOW-by-default in this
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hello,
I would like to request a transition slot for the new upstream release
of Bullet 2.83.7. The new binary packages are currently awaiting
approval in the NEW queue.
The reverse-dep
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie patch
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
linkchecker, a package to check links in a webpage, suffers from a
serious bug (#839241) which makes it impossible to check any HTTPS
webpage or any page that contains a HTTPS
Version: 2.0.2-1
Hi Frederic, hi Stable & LTS teams,
Frederic's suggestion is to patch CUPS to disable SSLv3 and RC4 algorithms to
protect CUPS from the POODLE vulnerability.
Have we removed protocols' support in {old,}stable before? Ubuntu applied
this patch in Ubuntu Trusty, and RedHat did
Am 29.09.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> On 08/09/16 00:03, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Please let us know when we can start with the transition.
>
> Let's do this!
>
Woohoo, thanks a lot.
I've uploaded evolution-data-server, evolution and evolution-ews in the
mean time.
evolution-
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
* Niels Thykier:
> 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 hardening feature
> * Upstream has vastly reduced the performance penalty for x86
> * The majority of all porters believe
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
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [2016-09-29 18:59]:
On 27/09/16 23:35, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
Due to the change of GNU triplet on *-i386, several Octave-related packages need
to be rebuilt on i386. The reason is that the location of arch-specific files in
Octave add-ons depends on the GNU tripl
21 matches
Mail list logo
