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 2016-10-03 19:32, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2016-10-03 16:52, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > You *are* aware that the current plan is for Stretch to be the last
> > release for armel?
>
> *Now* I am. Planned obsolescence is good for my company, but bad
> for customers and environment...
OK, than
On 2016-10-03 16:52, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> You *are* aware that the current plan is for Stretch to be the last
> release for armel?
*Now* I am. Planned obsolescence is good for my company, but bad
for customers and environment...
On 2016-10-03 10:32, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Well a number of those embedded systems are in fact using Debian powerpc.
Unfortunately, embedded systems are hard to count, which may
lead to wrong assumptions.
E.g. my company produces an embedded measurement device based on
Debian armel, but the d
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 01:17:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> This is not at all true. My experience is that IBM doesn't even build-
> test 32-bit configurations, as evidenced by several stable updates
> causing FTBFS in Debian.
>
> Which are very different from the Power Macs and similar plat
> As for SPARC, Oracle is actually now heavily investing in Linux SPARC
> support, so even SPARC is getting back into shape which is why I hope
> we can add sparc64 as an official port soon.
[...]
Oracle cares about Solaris on SPARC, not Linux on SPARC.
We certain
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 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.
>
> This is not at all true. My experience is that IBM doesn't even build-
> test 32-bit conf
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 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, 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
Aurelien Jarno:
> On 2016-08-17 22:05, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
>> 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
>
Hi,
Apologies for the tardiness on my part for this.
> Does it really c
Hi,
thanks for the work on this. I'd like to defer the final decision to the
release team, however I'm not keen on having these defaults turned on
architectures which already have enough issues on their own. In the recent
porters call people claim that turning on these "should not be a problem"
Hi,
First of all thanks to Lucas Nussbaum who ran the first test build!
2016-08-31 19:21 GMT+02:00 Steve Langasek :
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:55AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> Hello,
>> > Results are available at
>> > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2016/08/30/pie-bindnow-2016
-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
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:55AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Hello,
> > Results are available at
> > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2016/08/30/pie-bindnow-20160830/
> > I did a full rebuild with bindnow and PIE enabled, then rebuilt all
> > failed packages with a pristine unstable
Hi,
2016-08-31 12:26 GMT+02:00 Dimitri John Ledkov :
> Hello,
>
> On 30 August 2016 at 23:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 22/08/16 at 19:12 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>> Hi Guillem,
>>>
>>> 2016-08-21 14:02 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover :
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bá
Hello,
On 30 August 2016 at 23:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/08/16 at 19:12 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> Hi Guillem,
>>
>> 2016-08-21 14:02 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover :
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> >> I'm testing a set of patches [2] for gcc
On 22/08/16 at 19:12 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> Hi Guillem,
>
> 2016-08-21 14:02 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover :
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> >> I'm testing a set of patches [2] for gcc and dpkg which enable bindnow for
> >> all
> >> arches and PIE for
Hi,
I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
to continue this for the lifetime of the Stretch release (est. end
of 2020):
For ppc64el, I
- test most packages on this architecture
- run a Debian testing or unstable system on port that I use regularly
- triage arch-specifi
Hi,
I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
to continue this for the lifetime of the Stretch release (est. end
of 2020):
For mips, mipsel and mips64el, I
- test most packages on this architecture
- run a Debian testing or unstable system on port that I use
Sorry for the previous post without signature.
Hi,
I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
to continue this for the lifetime of the Stretch release (est. end
of 2020):
For mips, mipsel and mips64el, I
- test most packages on this architecture
- run a Debi
On 2016-08-17 22:05, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
> 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
Does it really concerns *all* release architectures? Traditionally amd64
and i386 have been grant
On 08/22/2016 07:12 PM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> Hi Guillem,
>
> 2016-08-21 14:02 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover :
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>> I'm testing a set of patches [2] for gcc and dpkg which enable bindnow for
>>> all
>>> arches and PIE for amd64, pp
Hi Guillem,
2016-08-21 14:02 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover :
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> I'm testing a set of patches [2] for gcc and dpkg which enable bindnow for
>> all
>> arches and PIE for amd64, ppc64el and s390x in sync with Ubuntu.
>>
>> My assumption
Hi!
On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> I'm testing a set of patches [2] for gcc and dpkg which enable bindnow for all
> arches and PIE for amd64, ppc64el and s390x in sync with Ubuntu.
>
> My assumption was that this set of architectures need the least amount of
> additio
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
