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

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

On Wed, 08, Jul, 2009 at 09:45:29AM -0400, Bill Traynor spoke thus..
> I guess the bigger questions would be "why bother?"  Given the limited
> number of Linux hackers I know of working on SuperH as it is, spending
> time on support for newer hardware would seem wiser.


So is there a consensus that sh4 inclusion is what is wanted?  If so, is
the port at a state where that's feasible.  Looking at debian-ports.org,
( http://buildd.debian-ports.org/stats/graph-week-big.png ) you seem to
have just under 90% of the archive built.

If you're still interested in getting the port into
unstable/experimental (and obviously aiming for a release, but that's up
to the release team), you need to co-ordinate between DSA (for buildd
hardware and hosting), the buildd team (for integration into the main
buildd network) the release team (to check they don't want to veto the
port), the security team (again to check they have no reason to veto the
port).  Finally, wearing my ftpmaster hat, if everyone else is happy,
I'll be happy to start the archive bootstrapping process with you.

Details of the bootstrapping process can be found at:



Mark Hymers <mhy at debian dot org>

"I got off at Durham... and fell in love with it instantly.  Why, it's
 wonderful - a perfect little city.  If you have never been to Durham, go
 there at once. Take my car. It's wonderful."
     Notes from a Small Island, Bill Bryson

Reply to: