[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 11-03-25 06:21 PM, Mark Hymers wrote:
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.

I would say that yes, the consensus is still that we need sh4 inclusion. I'm not sure of the state of the port at present, perhaps Iwamatsu-san can comment to that, but I know many of us use DebianSH today on various SH4-based boards.

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.

Iwamatsu-san, can you coordinate this effort?  If not who should?

Details of the bootstrapping process can be found at:



Reply to: