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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to