Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
- To: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
- Cc: debian-admin@lists.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-glibc@lists.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
- From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 08:24:11 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87mu495hpw.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 7e8da95f-c402-0f4a-92fe-3a21287ae1bc@debian.org> (Paul Gevers's message of "Wed, 8 Jul 2020 21:21:27 +0200")
- References: <[🔎] 7e8da95f-c402-0f4a-92fe-3a21287ae1bc@debian.org>
* Paul Gevers:
> * Concern for armel and armhf: only secondary upstream support in GCC
> (Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch and buster)
glibc upstream lately has trouble finding qualified persons to
implement security fixes for the 32-bit Arm architecture.
> * Concern for mips, mips64el, mipsel and ppc64el: no upstream support
> in GCC; Debian carries patches in binutils and GCC that haven't been
> integrated upstream even after a long time.
> (Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch and buster)
I think I said this the last time, but the claim that there is no GCC
upstream support for ppc64le in GCC or binutils does not appear to be
grounded in fact. 8-/
Reply to: