Hi, 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, Nobuhiro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature