Re: Architecture qualification
On 15.05.2012 16:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
sending [1] to each of the port lists, probably some time tomorrow.
We had replies for most architectures. To try and re-centralise this a
little more, and as my tuits seem to be disappearing even more quickly
than usual over the past couple of weeks:
amd64
-----
No issues.
armel
-----
Looks okay in general but can suffer if a buildd is lost, as was the
case recently. Steve McIntyre is looking at improving this by adding
capavity at York.
armhf
-----
Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
hurd-i386
---------
Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
{break,fucked}_arches? Would it make sense to release if it was still
in break_ and/or fucked_arches?
i386
----
No issues.
ia64
----
No real follow-up from porters. #638068 in initramfs-tools may be an
issue.
mips
----
Currently no porter box; being worked on. Some concern over stability
of some buildds.
mipsel
------
Currently suffering from the loss of a buildd. Machine replacement is
in progress, so hopefully won't be an issue for much longer.
powerpc
-------
Could do with clarifying active porters; a couple of people spoke up in
the thread.
s390
----
No issues; may be last release in favour of s390x.
s390x
-----
Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
sparc
-----
Need to clarify whether the 32-bit code generation issue noted for
Squeeze is still relevant.
Reply to: