[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 Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:21:16PM +0000, 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.
> Hi,
> 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.

Of course!
We are active to support sh4 in debian formally.

> 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:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/08/msg00009.html

Because there is still a problem in some packages, I do not still
perform these work. However, I will start work. 
I thank for your advice very much.

Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: