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 granted waivers as "the toolchain maintainers are happy to support" these architectures "as-is". That said the toolchain maintainers do not fix ports specific bugs outside of the toolchain. While I fully agree that we can have a waiver for amd64 due to being the de facto standard architecture, it seems that a few leaf packages do not build on i386 and that we have no porters to fix them. That is probably still fine, but I wonder how fast the number of such packages will increase in the future. > architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of > 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following What is the relation between the end of support of Stretch... > before Friday, the 9th of September: > * Which architectures are you committing to be an active porter for? > * Please describe recent relevant porter contributions. > * Are you running/using Debian testing or sid on said port(s)? > * Are you testing/patching d-i for the port(s)? > * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change > also apply to this port? [0] ... and the above questions? I fully agree that running testing/sid, fixing bugs or working on d-i up to the release of Stretch will improve its quality. But after the release it will improve the quality of Buster and later Bullseye. On the other hand running testing/sid after the release of Stretch will not help to catch bugs that can be fixed through a point release. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
