On 1 August 2016 at 20:27, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebast...@breakpoint.cc> wrote: > control: fixed -1 1.1.0~pre5-5 > control: found -1 1.0.2h-1 > control: notfound -1 1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.1 > > On 2016-08-01 15:32:18 [+0100], Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >> Version: 1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.1 > > since when do file bugs under an ubuntu version? >
Sorry, just a typo that I didn't fix. I file bugs from my x86_64 ubuntu machine and reportbug defaults to local machine package information, rather than target distribution. And as it is custom s390x is firewalled for me, so I can't file bugs from there. Thank you for fixing the headers. >> openssl as built in unstable does not have s390x asm optimisations >> enabled for the debian-s390x configuration. The attached patch enables >> them. I have verified on the porter box that things remain executable >> and operational with 4x speed improvements on some algorithms. Other >> distributions have these asm optimistions enabled for a while, and I >> have just enabled them in ubuntu too. > > I am not sure if this change makes sense for unstable at this point. The > next planned upload to unstable is the experimental version. So it > shouldn't end up in testing. > As far as I understand the experimetal version breaks abi/api and too many packages are not going to be fixed in time. So I thought that migration is on hold by release team, no? Anyway, the version in experimental is fixed and has asm, so if that edition of the package won't make it to unstable please consider including this patch. > Now. Porterbox. You talk here about a Debian porter box or Ubuntu? Debian. There are no Ubuntu Porterboxes. > You fidle with s390 and s390x cflags. Is this by chance or on purpose? > There is whitespace at the end of debian-s390, and my OCD had a hard time deciding whether to tolerate warning from quilt about trailing whitespace on the debian-s390 line or to have a minimal one-line diff only. -- Regards, Dimitri.
