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

Re: Bug#154179: Please create binary-sh[34] and remove binary-sh

[Sorry for the long CC: list, I was unsure about subscribers]

So, even if this report is quite old, it looks like something is
currently moving.
This mail is just to ping all interested parties and sum up relevant

In a recent thread[1], there were initial discussions about first
integrating sh4 into debian-ports[2], also to ease a future move into
the official archive. Buildd and porters hardware is reported to be
available, but it looks to me that the issue is currently related to
lack of manpower and people involved.

Porters, commenters and SH fans, would you please speak up and
coordinate initial setup with Aurelien?

Also, it would be good to have general-use knowledge about this port
available on the wiki, as it's already happening with other ports[3][4]
[5]. While digging the archive, I found many links to Japan
documentations and pages: I think you could try to attract more
contributors just providing more plain English docs.

While at it, can we consider consensus reached to start just with sh4,
ask for binary-sh removal and then if requested try to add other
flavors (having learned and gained experience from the past)?

Reply-to is currently set to Debian SuperH mailing list, please
follow-up there but try to keep this bug report updated with major
progresses and milestones reached.

Cheers, Luca

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-superh/2009/05/msg00001.html
[2] http://www.debian-ports.org/
[3] http://wiki.debian.org/ArmPort
[4] http://wiki.debian.org/ArmInfrastructure
[5] http://wiki.debian.org/ArchitectureSpecificsMemo

 .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **  | Luca Bruno (kaeso)
: :'  :   The Universal O.S.    | lucab (AT) debian.org
`. `'`  			| GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3
  `-     http://www.debian.org 	| Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Attachment: pgp9oukbQiF1v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: