Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

[YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>]

  Hi,

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

  For mips, mipsel and mips64el, I
  - test most 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
     Run daily build test
     Run autopkgtest
  - ...

  I am a DD

  I believe the ports *are* ready to have -fPIE/-pie enabled by default.

  YunQiang Su

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
> aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net



-- 
YunQiang Su