# 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, Nobuhiro 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