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 Debian testing or unstable system on port that I use regularly
- fix toolchain issues
- triage arch-specific bugs
- fix arch-related bugs
- triage d-i bugs
- test d-i regularly
- fix d-i bugs/issues
- maintain buildds
- maintain/provide hardware for (or assist with) automated tests on ci.d.n,
jenkins.d.n (etc.)
- run other automated tests outside the Debian QA services
Run daily build test
Run autopkgtest
- ...
I am a DD
I believe the ports *are* ready to have -fPIE/-pie enabled by default.
YunQiang Su
> 在 2016年8月31日，00:04，YunQiang Su <wzss...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> 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 regularly
> - fix toolchain issues
> - triage arch-specific bugs
> - fix arch-related bugs
> - triage d-i bugs
> - test d-i regularly
> - fix d-i bugs/issues
> - maintain buildds
> - maintain/provide hardware for (or assist with) automated tests on ci.d.n,
> jenkins.d.n (etc.)
> - run other automated tests outside the Debian QA services
> Run daily build test
> Run autopkgtest
> - ...
>
> I am a DD
>
> I believe the ports *are* ready to have -fPIE/-pie enabled by default.
>
> YunQiang Su
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> YunQiang Su
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
