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