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

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On 2016-08-17 22:05, niels@thykier.net wrote:
> 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

Does it really concerns *all* release architectures? Traditionally amd64
and i386 have been granted waivers as "the toolchain maintainers are
happy to support" these architectures "as-is". That said the toolchain
maintainers do not fix ports specific bugs outside of the toolchain.

While I fully agree that we can have a waiver for amd64 due to being the
de facto standard architecture, it seems that a few leaf packages do
not build on i386 and that we have no porters to fix them. That is
probably still fine, but I wonder how fast the number of such packages
will increase in the future.

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

What is the relation between the end of support of Stretch...

> 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]

... and the above questions?

I fully agree that running testing/sid, fixing bugs or working on d-i up
to the release of Stretch will improve its quality. But after the
release it will improve the quality of Buster and later Bullseye. On the
other hand running testing/sid after the release of Stretch will not
help to catch bugs that can be fixed through a point release.


Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: