[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Hector Oron <hector.oron@gmail.com> wrote:
[Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and riku@debian.org]


2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>:
> 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

I tried to follow the follow-up thread, ended up watching an hour
video which was quite fun and forgot all details. :-)

I have put up the classical wiki page for Stretch at:

Please review and comment if required.

> For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of:
>  * 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.

I understand s390x and ppc64el DSA concerns have been clarified
in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture.

For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm:
 * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus
geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more hardware
coming in the pipeline. I am unsure why it is listed with multiple DSA
concerns, that surprises me (with DSA and ARM porter hats). The port
currently has 4 machines up, one down waiting to be replaced, in total
5 and more coming.
 * armhf/armel ports share hardware, we currently have 6 machines up
with remote power and remote console (of course that being development
boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some
machines require a button press but local admins are great and always
happy to help.

If none steps up explaining what are DSA concerns on the ARM
architectures, please update status requalification page dropping
those concerns. [DSA hat on]

I see armel has one porter listed, if more are needed, please add
myself and Riku Voipio (armel buildd maints). [ARM hat on]
I see arm64/armhf are covered porterwise however there should be more
porters available if needed.

>    - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2)

>From the above comment: "armhf/armel ports share hardware, we
currently have 6 machines up"

>  * mips64el (NEW)
>    - No DSA buildd (RT blocker)

As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port
hardware, those machines are DSA.

>    - Rebuild after import not complete (RT Blocker)

Is there a list of packages that should be rebuilt?

>    - Not yet in testing (due to the above).

Please let's work on getting it in testing ASAP I think the above
blockers can be worked out quite reasonably.

>  * kfreebsd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64
>    - Not included in Jessie due to lack of sustainable man-power (RT
>      blocker)
>    - No news of the situation having changed
>    - If there is no news on the situation after DebConf16, I will
>      assume kfreebsd-* will not target Stretch.

Who has been keeping it up for stretch? (As a side note Stephen
Chamberlain, Christoph Egger and many other people keep working on it)
Not sure if those arches have more or less manpower than powerpc (in
example). I think it would be great to make a call here, we either
move kfreebsd ports to debian-ports infrastructure or go for the
release with it.

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
it have porters? Does it have users? Does it still make sense to carry

Another concern (DSA) which I have added and explained in the wiki
page is the lack of georedundancy for the 'mips' port. Verbatim copy
from wiki follows:
"mips: It has 5 buildds in the same datacenter, current hardware are
routers or development boards which makes it very difficult to ship to
other places. The host providing redundancy (lucatelli) at UBC-ECE
must be decomissioned ASAP, leaving the port in a situation of not
geographic redundancy. However advanced plans exists to deploy mips
hardware in other data centers RSN."

I'll keep you posted whenever there is progress on that area. I do not
believe it should be a blocker for release, but we must ensure geo
redundancy first.

> Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch.

Could you please check with sparc64 porters? I think some of them
commented on the follow ups.

 Héctor Orón  -.. . -... .. .- -.   -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.

Reply to: