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

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

# I removed Ishikawa-san and Niibe-san from CC.
# Because their mail address is dead.

Hi, Bill.

Thank you for following.
I start work as had written to the email which I sent earlier.

Best regards,

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Bill Traynor wrote:
> 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.
> >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.
> 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:
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/08/msg00009.html
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Mark
> >

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: