Paul Gevers wrote:
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we
> request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and the toolchain
> maintainers review and update their list of known concerns for bullseye
> release architectures.
There's nothing really of concern from th
I don't know if this should be a blocker, but the MIPS builders are
still extremely slow for kernel builds. In the worst case (mipsel:
mipsel-aql-{01,02}) it takes about 41 hours, which is 3 times longer
than the next slowest group of builders (armhf: hasse, henze, holby).
This can be a problem fo
On 7/8/20 9:21 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Note, this e-mail may look familiar as it is mostly copied over from
> the buster call, not much has changed, AFAICT].
>
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we
> request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and th
* Paul Gevers:
> * Concern for armel and armhf: only secondary upstream support in GCC
>(Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch and buster)
glibc upstream lately has trouble finding qualified persons to
implement security fixes for the 32-bit Arm architecture.
> * Concern
Hi,
[Note, this e-mail may look familiar as it is mostly copied over from
the buster call, not much has changed, AFAICT].
As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we
request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and the toolchain
maintainers review and update their list
