Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:01:48AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
>Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters.
>While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with
>the architecture qualifications.
>For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of:
> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,
> - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security.
> - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns.
> - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2)
Also on the arm* front, I see a concern about armel porters. There's a
lot of overlap for all the arm ports, so that surprises me I'll be
However, I will admit (again) that armel is starting to lose upstream
support in some cases. I'm tempted to suggest that Stretch should be
the last release for armel for that reason.
The alternative is to work out a reasonable definition of "core"
packages for some architectures to use, as a limited target space -
like StevenC suggested. We've been talking about that kind of thing
for years now, but *if* we're going to make a go of it then somebody
needs to start working on it.
FTAOD: I'm *not* volunteering for that work myself - I can see a
number of pros and cons, but I've already got more on my plate than I
need right now... :-)
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on
occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll