Architecture qualification meeting

Architecture qualification for Debian 9 'Stretch' will take place in oftc/#debian-release on Sun Oct 30 20:00:00 UTC 2016. The meeting is primarily a discussion amongst the release team. We will evaluate each port on the most up-to-date information available to us, and determine

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

Adrian Bunk: > [ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] > > [...] > > Is https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html the up-to-date > information available to you, and the "candidate" line how a decision > would look like based on the current

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

[ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:35:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > I am arranging the final architecture qualification meeting for Stretch. > This is primarily of interest to the release team, but

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 16/06/16 02:12, Hector Oron wrote: > I have put up the classical wiki page for Stretch at: > https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch > > Please review and comment if required. That page is now outdated wrt mips concerns (see below). Do we need to duplicate the information that

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > (sorry for jumping in late here) > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

(sorry for jumping in late here) On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:35:20PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Yeah, apparently it's cheaper to bootstrap a complete new little endian > platform than to fix portability issues in existing software... I believe a big reason is that Nvidia cards expect little endian data, and the overhead

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote: > Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and > big-endian vs little-endian. > > The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based > on PowerPC, and one source that I read

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and big-endian vs little-endian. The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based on PowerPC, and one source that I read mentioned little-endian, likely for binary file compatibility with files produced on Intel x86

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-20 10:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to >> support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we? > > Well it is getting there. The

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to > support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we? Well it is getting there. -- Len Sorensen

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/20/2016 04:05 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Also I suspect many users of 64 bit capable freescale chips > (e5500 and e6500 cores) are running 32 bit powerpc since they > don't have enough ram to actually really gain anything > from going to 64 bit, and the ppc64 port isn't done yet. Well,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 08:35:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port? Yes. The only ones that don't are the Freescale 85xx and P10[12]x chips, which are powerpcspe due to using the e500 core. All the 83xx and 82xx chips which are still

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

* Lennart Sorensen: > There are a lot of 32bit powerpc chips still going into embedded systems > being built today. They are not going away anytime soon. Do they implement the ISA required by the existing Debian port?

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

> In other words, i don't think a s390x box will ever just die. I'm sure “death” encompasses all events which might lead Debian to lose access to relevant hardware. It's not just about faults with a piece of equipment.

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/18/2016 06:25 PM, William ML Leslie wrote: > In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part > of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. > Package > maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

In case it isn't clear, the number of users of the architecture is not part of the qualification, it is the amount of maintenance pressure involved. Package maintainers have to put more effort into ensuring builds succeed for release architectures, which detracts from other work that needs to be

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

I run all sorts of PowerPC machines with various versions of Debian and I don't see that coming to end anytime soon. These are excellent and reliable machines. Biggest issues/hurdles are just graphics at the moment for both ATI/AMD and Nvidia cards, but even if that is never resolved/fixed or

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, Dan DeVoto wrote: In addition to the debian powerpc mailing list, powerpc users are active on the Ubuntu forums. I'm running Debian Sid on a Powerbook and everything works except 3D acceleration. I don't see a need to drop it. I hope that my iBook G3 will serve me for years to come!

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:04:12AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > The debian-powerpc@l.d.o mailing list is active so I would say it > still has some users. I have been using partch.d.o for doing some work > on PowerPC. I posted a summary of work people have been doing on this > port lately: >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-15 00:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist colledge. At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE joined with indication that Open

RE: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Here too all new amiga Ng are PPC with last generations of gpu pcie Amd boards and we are using linux expecially Debian. Luigi From: herminio.hernande...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:02:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification To: hector.o...@gmail.com CC

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Hector, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Hector Oron wrote: [...] > While working out ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I > believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a > personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does >

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

I know there are still powerpc users who run Debian. I am one of them and love to see it continue. How can I help? Thanks! On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Hector Oron wrote: > [Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and r...@debian.org] > > Hello, > > 2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

[Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and r...@debian.org] Hello, 2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier : > Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters. > > While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with > the architecture qualifications. Excellent! Thanks

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 18:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > There is openmainframe project https://www.openmainframeproject.org/ , > which I believe offers access to z/VM instances hosted by Marist > colledge. > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use > resources hosted by Marist. > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14 June 2016 at 20:22, wrote: > On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >>> Philipp Kern: >>> > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: Philipp Kern: > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>s390x >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/14/2016 09:06 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > Yeah, but that's unfortunately one of the universal truths of this port. > I mean in theory sometimes they turn up on eBay and people try to make > them work[1]. Hilarious talk, thanks a lot for the link :). > It also seems true for other ports where

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14/06/16 09:06, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Philipp Kern: >>> On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x - *No* blockers at this time from

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Philipp Kern: > > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, > >>s390x > >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. > >>- s390,

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Philipp Kern: > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, >>s390x >>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. >>- s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. > > What is the current DSA

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security. - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns. What is the current DSA concern about s390x? Kind regards

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 2016-06-05 8:56 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state in Debian. >We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Steven Chamberlain: > Hi, > Hi, > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state >> in Debian. >> We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, >> Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 13:26 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > sh4: > > > The two biggest issues with sh4 are currently with binutils and the > kernel. binutils has problems when building Qt5: > There is in fact another big elephant in the room, which I have mentioned several

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

thanks to everyone explaining arch:any to me :) -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state in > Debian. > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox, > Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name the most important ones. Is there

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: > Hi Niels! > > On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. >> >> I kindly ask you to: >> >> * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch. > > To give some insight what's

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 05/06/16 13:00, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: ppc64: This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have over 11.000 packages installed [...] sparc64: We are close to 11.000

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> ppc64: >> >> This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We >> have over >> 11.000 packages installed > [...] >> sparc64: >> We are close to

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 06/05/2016 02:00 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm not sure whether you are talking about source or binary packages but > sid/amd64 has over 24000 source packages and over 5 binary packages, > so I would call the above "on par". Or what am I missing? There are just around 12,000 source

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 01:26:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > ppc64: > > This architecture is basically on par with the release architectures. We have > over > 11.000 packages installed [...] > sparc64: > We are close to 11.000 installed packages. I'm not sure whether you are

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi Niels! On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch. > > I kindly ask you to: > > * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch. To give some insight what's happening in Debian Ports. We have two

[Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters. While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with the architecture qualifications. For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of: * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x -

Re: Re: Architecture qualification

On 6/1/12, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote: Hi, On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:18:30PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote: [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make

Re: Re: Architecture qualification

On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 10:56 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: I assume this is not a regular mail correspondence, is it? I generally consider it polite to give people an opportunity to respond before assuming that you're being ignored, especially if it's part of a longer thread. Maybe three

Re: Architecture qualification

Hi, On Montag, 4. Juni 2012, Svante Signell wrote: One issue is how to encourage more people trying Hurd out, when it is not in testing. I honestly don't think that's the main blocker trying out hurd. Lack of SATA, and USB support are the blocker, I think. And probably also missing meaningful

Re: Re: Architecture qualification

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:18 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: From the one of the porters side, this would be a _very_ good solution indeed! If GNU/Hurd enters som kind of testing status, the number of users and contributors will

Re: Architecture qualification

On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 13:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Montag, 4. Juni 2012, Svante Signell wrote: One issue is how to encourage more people trying Hurd out, when it is not in testing. I honestly don't think that's the main blocker trying out hurd. Lack of SATA, and USB

Re: Architecture qualification

On Montag, 4. Juni 2012, Svante Signell wrote: Do you mean gnome3 and KDE4/5 here, or maybe DRM? DRM No, this time the work is based on the DDE framework, recently successfully implemented for network drivers. Ask Samuel Thibault for more details if interested, he is the person in charge.

Re: Architecture qualification

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:37:14 +0200 Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote: No, this time the work is based on the DDE framework, recently successfully implemented for network drivers. Ask Samuel Thibault for more details if interested, he is the person in charge. BTW: USB support might

Re: Re: Architecture qualification

On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:18 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote: [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs for hurd-i386 are not RC. Maybe

Re: Re: Architecture qualification

Hi, On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:18:30PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote: [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs for hurd-i386 are not RC.

Re: Re: Architecture qualification

On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote: [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs for hurd-i386 are not RC. Maybe that's all that's needed? The recent enthusiasm sounds to me

Re: Architecture qualification

Joerg Jaspert, le Tue 29 May 2012 09:02:32 +0200, a écrit : There is only one thing I would agree on: If the RT decides to not include them in wheezy but add them to wheezy+1 right after wheezy is released (so we would be doing it during the process) and keep them there for the next release,

Re: Architecture qualification

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: What is a problem is not appearing on buildd.debian.org. That makes maintainers way less receptive to patches or even fix their package themselves. I wonder how that makes a difference, even psychologically. We don't mail failed

Re: Architecture qualification

Philipp Kern, le Wed 30 May 2012 14:10:02 +0200, a écrit : On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: What is a problem is not appearing on buildd.debian.org. That makes maintainers way less receptive to patches or even fix their package themselves. I wonder how

Re: Architecture qualification

On 30/05/12 13:10, Philipp Kern wrote: I wonder how that makes a difference, even psychologically. We don't mail failed builds for hurd-i386 to maintainers for example. Actually, when looking into kfreebsd-* issues, I find it very helpful to see hurd-i386 on buildd.d.o, along with log excerpts

Re: Architecture qualification

On 12861 March 1977, Steve McIntyre wrote: There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this stage of the process which we don't think is releasable? My memory of previous discussions is that the general

Re: Architecture qualification

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:02:32 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: - hurd can come back into the main archive following the usual archive qualification every other new addition has to follow. Clean, simple, straight forward. Not completely sure about the simple, straight forward part, if it