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

Porter roll call for Debian Stretch



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

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
architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of
2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following
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]


Feel free to use the following template as your reply:

"""
  Hi,
  
  I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
  to continue this for the lifetime of the Stretchj release (est. end
  of 2020):

  For <ARCH>, I
  - test (most|all) 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 (Please describe
    these)
  - ...
  
  <I am a DD|I am a DM|I am not a DD/DM>

  I believe the port <is|is not> ready to have -fPIE/-pie enabled by default.
  
  <YOUR NAME>
"""

Niels, on behalf of the release team

[0] Enabling -fPIE/-fpie by default would harden debian systems against certain
    attacks.  See https://lintian.debian.org/tags/hardening-no-pie.html for
    more details.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=TKl5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: