Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch
On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 10/01/2016 02:17 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very > > > active because it's part of the PowerPC kernel which is maintained by > > > IBM. > > > > This is not at all true. My experience is that IBM doesn't even build- > > test 32-bit configurations, as evidenced by several stable updates > > causing FTBFS in Debian. > > They care enough that they are fixing bugs. Just recently, a bug in the > PowerPC kernel was fixed that affected 32-bit embedded PowerPCs only. $ git log --author=ibm --grep='ppc-?32|powerpc-?32|32-bit' -i -E arch/powerpc finds me fewer than ten commits per year. > > > > > > > > As for SPARC, Oracle is actually now heavily investing in Linux SPARC > > > support, so even SPARC is getting back into shape which is why I hope > > > we can add sparc64 as an official port soon. > > [...] > > > > Oracle cares about Solaris on SPARC, not Linux on SPARC. > > Well, then you know more than the people at Oracle that I am talking to. [... much evidence of Oracle supporting Linux on SPARC ...] OK, I accept this has changed, but I'm quite surprised - Oracle is ruthlessly commercial, and I'm mystified as to who they expect to buy it. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production: A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 22:34 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 09/30/2016 09:04 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > > As for "porter qualification" > > = > > > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for > > Jessie. However, we ended up with a completely broken and unbootable > > sparc kernel. > > To be fair, this happened because the upstream kernel development for > SPARC came to an almost complete stop. There was basically only David > Miller working on the port which turned out not to be enough. > > This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very > active because it's part of the PowerPC kernel which is maintained by > IBM. This is not at all true. My experience is that IBM doesn't even build- test 32-bit configurations, as evidenced by several stable updates causing FTBFS in Debian. > PowerPC32 is also still quite popular which is why it still sees > quite some testing in the wild. There are still new PowerPC32 designs > based on embedded CPUs (FreeScale and the like). Which are very different from the Power Macs and similar platforms that most Debian powerpc users care about. > As for SPARC, Oracle is actually now heavily investing in Linux SPARC > support, so even SPARC is getting back into shape which is why I hope > we can add sparc64 as an official port soon. [...] Oracle cares about Solaris on SPARC, not Linux on SPARC. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production: A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch
On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 02:28 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:01:55PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: [...] > > I have not heard from the ppc64el porters, but I suspect ppc64 will > > not be a release arch. So you need to take into consideration that for > > powerpc to remain a release arch, one need minimal working ppc64 port. > > Could we solve the situation of ppc64 for Stretch, could it be moved > > to official release arch ? > > What would you need ppc64 for? Unlike i386, powerpc includes 64-bit > kernels so users don't need multiarch: [...] This is only the case because ppc64 has a lower level of support (unofficial port) than powerpc (release architecture). The 64-bit kernel package should be dropped once powerpc is at the same or lower level of support than ppc64 - just as we've done for i386, s390 and sparc. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production: A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing (Status update)
On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 19:36 +0200, Émeric MASCHINO wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a long-time ia64 Debian user (> 10 years). I'm mostly focused on > desktop aspects (GNOME, Iceweasel, LibreOffice, Qt Creator, C++ 3D > software development) while most other ia64 users that I know are more > inclined on server use. > > I'm not a DD/DM, but daily update my ia64 workstation, report bugs and > do my best to provide useful information in order to get them fixed. Thank you for this. > I've also provided a couple of kernel patches in the past. I'm cross > testing with Gentoo to ensure that bugs I report are Debian-specific > or ia64-generic. > > I'll continue testing/software development activity on ia64 for the > Jessie cycle, and more generally, until Debian drops ia64. I'm already > waiting for Wayland on ia64 and other big updates. > > So please, keep ia64 in the bandwagon ;-) But I don't think ia64 is well-supported even in wheezy. The kernel doesn't boot on some common machines and no-one seems to be able to fix it. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: looking for kernel-maintainer
Please don't cross-post to many lists. debian-kernel would have been sufficient. On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 10:39 +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > sorry to write here, but at the moment it is not possible, to register or > send > bugreports to bugzilla.kernel.org. > > Seems the mailsystem is completely down. So I even cannot send the message, > that the mailservice is down, too. > > I hope, that one of the kernel-maintainers might read this message here and > will have a look on this. > > The bugreport I want to send, is about the kernel-module "ath5k", which is > now > maintained by the kernel-maintainers themselves. Where can I send it, if not > to bugzilla.kernel.org? > > Please inform the kernel-maintainers of their problem, when you know one! You can find this out from the MAINTAINERS file in the kernel source tree. It is also packaged in the linux-doc-$version packages. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, about L-Space IRC channel #afp signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: g++/cpp segmentation fault on amd64
On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 16:27 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Hi all, > it's since 1 month (more or less) that g++ and cpp have problems on my > box. I recieve the errors compiling some of my packages: I suspect that either: (1) A gcc binary is corrupted - use debsums to check this (2) Your computer has a hardware fault that causes data corruption - see http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/ for some hints on troubleshooting (though this is quite old) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Anthony's Law of Force: Don't force it, get a larger hammer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
