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

Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)


[I've replaced debian-ports with debian-sparc in the recipients list]

Niels Thykier wrote:
> Arch           || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total
> ---------------++-----++---------++-------++------
> sparc[2]       ||  1  ||       0 ||     0 ||    1
> [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be
> looking at 3 in the "Other"-column rather than 0.

Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> So it might make sense to drop sparc in any case and add sparc64 if
> there are enough people interested.

Well, count me in for sparc64 in general, too. I expect, too, that's
where we're heading to anyway, and I don't expect too many
differences. I though fear that we're not yet there:

Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of
my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due
to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs
for the Perl 5.14 to Perl 5.18 transition.

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Sparc64#Bootstrapping_sparc64
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2013/10/msg00001.html

OTOH such issues were present in the past[3] of sparc64, too, back
then with the transition from Perl 5.10 to Perl 5.12.

[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2011/05/msg00030.html

		Regards, Axel
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: