• [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

    From Holger Levsen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 5 16:10:01 2016
    thanks to everyone explaining arch:any to me :)

    --
    cheers,
    Holger

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1

    iQIVAwUBV1QkQQkauFYGmqocAQqvKRAAqKrwVo3pHmzm45hjuHdmmm2UHbhMIgBj foOGmjC9hThwHw+Hyrq++aZNoSd5DBV+G6RsTxecZyWMTvjdyBGOKEAPk7hNIaiT qNIqM79L0dk0hgeECmBM/OBSrmrG0RiOm70/EfPKjR2oX98MT7l4HZO8qDdgL4Es OqZ4bxHCYJ2eHEgA9jHSW8nGP9YRsw2C+Ghxn91Ij3Hm+WWpTtUHqmsDSlVaDidv A/jlpPvjL5rozuLObzuDWDto5S//KQC+IXjz6ToCgO/pvhvAX8/EsUd/jWenXqw3 AEZg0kUHRkAKnC1JM3vdHpejSa0S56VUNWfArAKDgfiw3kPMTD4fzd8shj43K59v txnIED25puwJRanNAk9bvT+3mwRW3BYJ3n2zirY1Z5WC0dfTPMeyKJxw7MOKmORL par09G1Ts5eLsjBKIeYrTYlURdNm5oDbitL9wSoGFnbemJRI5z4Dnkci+VF2Tmht 4N2lZAjZLze0Bbnc3F+LSVpQB10us8b/avvpMVYXWL5UPvsSh3/Z0V0q20XcyS9Y Jn5OGPKRntfQe5bzDx3nPKnkKZjTrSxMnIwurJLMyGKOCJqUPti8bKdD3RWVm9nk mUlgj0LjL986HUsfRtyTN5CEpGtvbgg0KqimD4n7DbXNgK6ENjeGt2mz565OjZtO
    qoqNvphQicc=
    =LrxB
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Niels Thykier@21:1/5 to DSA on Sun Jun 5 15:50:01 2016
    To: team@security.debian.org (Debian Security Team)
    To: debian-release@lists.debian.org (debian-release)
    To: debian-ports@lists.debian.org

    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --1bxhBW3dCHQa6gnm868HDOqIR9kbC9hIG
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
    Hi Niels!

    On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
    Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch.

    I kindly ask you to:

    * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting Stretch.

    To give some insight what's happening in Debian Ports. We have two candidates which
    I think would qualify for inclusion in a stable release. There is also a third
    potential candidate for future releases of Debian once the hardware has become
    available.


    Thanks. :)

    ppc64:

    [...]

    AFAICT, it is not in unstable and I have not heard of any attempts to
    bootstrap it there yet. Who is working on it and what is the ETA?


    sparc64:

    [...]


    Thanks for the update. For every one working on this, please keep in
    mind that it can take quite a while to be set up and included in testing
    (even without missing hardware).

    If you are unable to acquire (promise of) the necessary hardware within
    a month or two, making it into a Stretch will probably be very hard.

    sh4:

    [...]

    Thanks,
    Adrian

    [...]

    While it sounds exciting, I doubt it will be ready for Stretch (I
    presume this was the "potential candidate for a future release").

    Thanks,
    ~Niels



    --1bxhBW3dCHQa6gnm868HDOqIR9kbC9hIG--

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXVB+pAAoJEAVLu599gGRCoAgQAIrIoguAF4f1C9ya099N7EZx dBgPuR0E2887IbxNv9rBCvsxM9xVFUA1WGk9d48a3sZVtgSr/i1GX8qWEidN2g1c rLkzsyWMZhbIssA3RKF7jykyeIlcY62XEx96Er/SMfzC2LkItqawdE90nWJBI2H0 5ibkSYJoz/scPY+NCGgCUlLXd5cOzlHREHSnIBjZAHTuN7F8JaXt20Mku1obTVM3 P8ajc3RRsTtHWCxih7GDXuk+Aojl8maICfZTyUG1k+gkHydIrGzXDWtuimGM8eFD zaKxaLtRHe1VoOQ9nQ3jGjPTbtkuCclUSu0v42t37NGj+CEoxk/MjfegxHbasVgd hxXVMFW/t4AFaPoi0OnVpbolZZzrwnf5zAIkGppBnBJ+LeRe4sMeanm4DMbqowrX Z0Hx4WjckhxY3+fJMT9nNzdQUbOkTcrN12Y9FHYjbE24bhI3pY+Bwzmd7+nGf1gJ ofnHBGovw1MPc2H6F6Y0ufISj6ojdms4QqIu95/7vqB2GLRGciBDoxTaCWkbWhE0 hP7k98q5aZRttqENJOMCLdRlYk9jIP/9AvQGLF2/EZG63ySF0WRaoCkoACHMX/Pk uI9I/WLL3vEKL0EHYw5aYUmza4l2/PmKxWKerVnwAXqDrp4ojbCMT2acjRLN7fox rzhLNIwG3br7t77dTj+4
    =RMa8
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hector Oron@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 16 03:20:01 2016
    [Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and riku@debian.org]

    Hello,

    2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>:
    Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters.

    While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with
    the architecture qualifications.

    Excellent! Thanks

    I tried to follow the follow-up thread, ended up watching an hour
    video which was quite fun and forgot all details. :-)

    I have put up the classical wiki page for Stretch at:
    https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch

    Please review and comment if required.

    For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of:

    * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,
    s390x
    - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security.
    - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns.

    I understand s390x and ppc64el DSA concerns have been clarified
    in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture.

    For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm:
    * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more hardware
    coming in the pipeline. I am unsure why it is listed with multiple DSA concerns, that surprises me (with DSA and ARM porter hats). The port
    currently has 4 machines up, one down waiting to be replaced, in total
    5 and more coming.
    * armhf/armel ports share hardware, we currently have 6 machines up
    with remote power and remote console (of course that being development
    boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some
    machines require a button press but local admins are great and always
    happy to help.

    If none steps up explaining what are DSA concerns on the ARM
    architectures, please update status requalification page dropping
    those concerns. [DSA hat on]

    I see armel has one porter listed, if more are needed, please add
    myself and Riku Voipio (armel buildd maints). [ARM hat on]
    I see arm64/armhf are covered porterwise however there should be more
    porters available if needed.

    - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2)

    From the above comment: "armhf/armel ports share hardware, we
    currently have 6 machines up"

    * mips64el (NEW)
    - No DSA buildd (RT blocker)

    As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port
    hardware, those machines are DSA.

    - Rebuild after import not complete (RT Blocker)

    Is there a list of packages that should be rebuilt?

    - Not yet in testing (due to the above).

    Please let's work on getting it in testing ASAP I think the above
    blockers can be worked out quite reasonably.

    * kfreebsd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64
    - Not included in Jessie due to lack of sustainable man-power (RT
    blocker)
    - No news of the situation having changed
    - If there is no news on the situation after DebConf16, I will
    assume kfreebsd-* will not target Stretch.

    Who has been keeping it up for stretch? (As a side note Stephen
    Chamberlain, Christoph Egger and many other people keep working on it)
    Not sure if those arches have more or less manpower than powerpc (in
    example). I think it would be great to make a call here, we either
    move kfreebsd ports to debian-ports infrastructure or go for the
    release with it.

    While working out ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I
    believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a
    personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does
    it have porters? Does it have users? Does it still make sense to carry
    along?

    Another concern (DSA) which I have added and explained in the wiki
    page is the lack of georedundancy for the 'mips' port. Verbatim copy
    from wiki follows:
    "mips: It has 5 buildds in the same datacenter, current hardware are
    routers or development boards which makes it very difficult to ship to
    other places. The host providing redundancy (lucatelli) at UBC-ECE
    must be decomissioned ASAP, leaving the port in a situation of not
    geographic redundancy. However advanced plans exists to deploy mips
    hardware in other data centers RSN."

    I'll keep you posted whenever there is progress on that area. I do not
    believe it should be a blocker for release, but we must ensure geo
    redundancy first.

    Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch.

    Could you please check with sparc64 porters? I think some of them
    commented on the follow ups.

    Regards,
    --
    Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alexmcwhirter@triadic.us@21:1/5 to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz on Mon Jun 20 19:00:02 2016
    On 2016-06-20 10:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
    On 06/20/2016 04:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
    On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 04:11:32PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
    wrote:
    Well, we just did a full archive rebuild of "ppc64" to be able to
    support ppc64 on the e5500 cores by disabling AltiVec, didn't we?

    Well it is getting there.

    The archive rebuild is done and around 11200 packages are up-to-date.
    It's
    just the installer that needs work and someone needs to convince the
    release
    team that ppc64 is something we want as a release architecture.

    Adrian

    Just out of curiosity, what's the stipulation with ppc64? Access to
    hardware shouldn't be a problem if ppc64el is a release arch. Maybe i'm
    just weird, but i would pick ppc64 over ppc64el any day. Other than my
    personal affinity for big endian cpu's, ppc64el only has support for one generation of cpu's whereas ppc64 should be able to run on everything
    from power4 / ppc970 and up without too much trouble.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From luigi burdo@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 16 10:30:02 2016
    Here too all new amiga Ng are PPC with last generations of gpu pcie Amd boards and we are using linux expecially Debian.
    Luigi

    From: herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com
    Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:02:29 -0700
    Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification
    To: hector.oron@gmail.com
    CC: niels@thykier.net; debian-admin@lists.debian.org; team@security.debian.org; debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-ports@lists.debian.org; debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org; riku@debian.org

    I know there are still powerpc users who run Debian. I am one of them and love to see it continue. How can I help?
    Thanks!
    On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Hector Oron <hector.oron@gmail.com> wrote: [Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and riku@debian.org]

    Hello,

    2016-06-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>:
    Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters.

    While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with
    the architecture qualifications.

    Excellent! Thanks

    I tried to follow the follow-up thread, ended up watching an hour
    video which was quite fun and forgot all details. :-)

    I have put up the classical wiki page for Stretch at:
    https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch

    Please review and comment if required.

    For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of:

    * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,
    s390x
    - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security.
    - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns.

    I understand s390x and ppc64el DSA concerns have been clarified
    in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture.

    For the ARM ports, which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm:
    * arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more hardware
    coming in the pipeline. I am unsure why it is listed with multiple DSA concerns, that surprises me (with DSA and ARM porter hats). The port
    currently has 4 machines up, one down waiting to be replaced, in total
    5 and more coming.
    * armhf/armel ports share hardware, we currently have 6 machines up
    with remote power and remote console (of course that being development
    boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some
    machines require a button press but local admins are great and always
    happy to help.

    If none steps up explaining what are DSA concerns on the ARM
    architectures, please update status requalification page dropping
    those concerns. [DSA hat on]

    I see armel has one porter listed, if more are needed, please add
    myself and Riku Voipio (armel buildd maints). [ARM hat on]
    I see arm64/armhf are covered porterwise however there should be more
    porters available if needed.

    - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2)

    From the above comment: "armhf/armel ports share hardware, we
    currently have 6 machines up"

    * mips64el (NEW)
    - No DSA buildd (RT blocker)

    As far as I can see mips64el is using shared builds with mipsel port
    hardware, those machines are DSA.

    - Rebuild after import not complete (RT Blocker)

    Is there a list of packages that should be rebuilt?

    - Not yet in testing (due to the above).

    Please let's work on getting it in testing ASAP I think the above
    blockers can be worked out quite reasonably.

    * kfreebsd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64
    - Not included in Jessie due to lack of sustainable man-power (RT
    blocker)
    - No news of the situation having changed
    - If there is no news on the situation after DebConf16, I will
    assume kfreebsd-* will not target Stretch.

    Who has been keeping it up for stretch? (As a side note Stephen
    Chamberlain, Christoph Egger and many other people keep working on it)
    Not sure if those arches have more or less manpower than powerpc (in
    example). I think it would be great to make a call here, we either
    move kfreebsd ports to debian-ports infrastructure or go for the
    release with it.

    While working out ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I
    believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a
    personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does
    it have porters? Does it have users? Does it still make sense to carry
    along?

    Another concern (DSA) which I have added and explained in the wiki
    page is the lack of georedundancy for the 'mips' port. Verbatim copy
    from wiki follows:
    "mips: It has 5 buildds in the same datacenter, current hardware are
    routers or development boards which makes it very difficult to ship to
    other places. The host providing redundancy (lucatelli) at UBC-ECE
    must be decomissioned ASAP, leaving the port in a situation of not
    geographic redundancy. However advanced plans exists to deploy mips
    hardware in other data centers RSN."

    I'll keep you posted whenever there is progress on that area. I do not
    believe it should be a blocker for release, but we must ensure geo
    redundancy first.

    Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch.

    Could you please check with sparc64 porters? I think some of them
    commented on the follow ups.

    Regards,
    --
    Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.



    <html>
    <head>
    <style><!--
    .hmmessage P
    {
    margin:0px;
    padding:0px
    }
    body.hmmessage
    {
    font-size: 12pt;
    font-family:Calibri
    }
    </style></head>
    <body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Here too all new amiga Ng are PPC &nbsp;with last generations of gpu pcie Amd boards&nbsp;<div>and we are using linux &nbsp;expecially&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Debian.</span><div><br></div><div>Luigi<br><
    <div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com<br>Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:02:29 -0700<br>Subject: Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification<br>To: hector.oron@gmail.com<br>CC: niels@thykier.net; debian-admin@lists.debian.
    org; team@security.debian.org; debian-release@lists.debian.org; debian-ports@lists.debian.org; debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org; riku@debian.org<br><br><div dir="ltr">I know there are still powerpc users who run Debian. I am one of them and love to see it
    continue. How can I help?<div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div></div><div class="ecxgmail_extra"><br><div class="ecxgmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Hector Oron <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:hector.oron@gmail.com" target="_blank">hector.
    oron@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">[Add to CC debian-wb-team@ and <a href="mailto:riku@debian.org">riku@debian.org</a>]<br><br>Hello,<br><span><br>2016-06-05
    12:01 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier &lt;<a href="mailto:niels@thykier.net">niels@thykier.net</a>&gt;:<br>&gt; Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with<br>&gt;
    the architecture qualifications.<br><br></span>Excellent! Thanks<br><br>I tried to follow the follow-up thread, ended up watching an hour<br>video which was quite fun and forgot all details. :-)<br><br>I have put up the classical wiki page for
    Stretch at:<br>&nbsp; <a href="https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Stretch</a><br><br>Please review and comment if required.<br><span><br>&gt; For
    starters, here are the architectures we are aware of:<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp; * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; s390x<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security.<br>
    &gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns.<br><br></span>I understand s390x and ppc64el DSA concerns have been clarified<br>in-list and those concerns are due to nature of the architecture.<br><br>For the ARM ports,
    which have also been clarified, let me re-confirm:<br>&nbsp;* arm64 port has remote power and remote console available, plus<br>geo-redundancy, hardware is available and there is more hardware<br>coming in the pipeline. I am unsure why it is listed
    with multiple DSA<br>concerns, that surprises me (with DSA and ARM porter hats). The port<br>currently has 4 machines up, one down waiting to be replaced, in total<br>5 and more coming.<br>&nbsp;* armhf/armel ports share hardware, we currently have 6
    machines up<br>with remote power and remote console (of course that being development<br>boards is not so nice as server remote management goodies). Some<br>machines require a button press but local admins are great and always<br>happy to help.<br><
    If none steps up explaining what are DSA concerns on the ARM<br>architectures, please update status requalification page dropping<br>those concerns. [DSA hat on]<br><br>I see armel has one porter listed, if more are needed, please add<br>myself
    and Riku Voipio (armel buildd maints). [ARM hat on]<br>I see arm64/armhf are covered porterwise however there should be more<br>porters available if needed.<br><span><br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2)<br><
    </span>&gt;From the above comment: "armhf/armel ports share hardware, we<br>currently have 6 machines up"<br><span><br>&gt;&nbsp; * mips64el (NEW)<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - No DSA buildd (RT blocker)<br><br></span>As far as I can see mips64el is
    using shared builds with mipsel port<br>hardware, those machines are DSA.<br><span><br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - Rebuild after import not complete (RT Blocker)<br><br></span>Is there a list of packages that should be rebuilt?<br><span><br>&gt;&nbsp; &
    nbsp; - Not yet in testing (due to the above).<br><br></span>Please let's work on getting it in testing ASAP I think the above<br>blockers can be worked out quite reasonably.<br><span><br>&gt;&nbsp; * kfreebsd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64<br>&gt;&nbsp; &
    nbsp; - Not included in Jessie due to lack of sustainable man-power (RT<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; blocker)<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - No news of the situation having changed<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; - If there is no news on the situation after DebConf16, I
    will<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; assume kfreebsd-* will not target Stretch.<br><br></span>Who has been keeping it up for stretch? (As a side note Stephen<br>Chamberlain, Christoph Egger and many other people keep working on it)<br>Not sure if those
    arches have more or less manpower than powerpc (in<br>example). I think it would be great to make a call here, we either<br>move kfreebsd ports to debian-ports infrastructure or go for the<br>release with it.<br><br>While working out
    ArchitectureQualification/Stretch wiki page I<br>believe everything is mostly fine for release, however I got a<br>personal concern on powerpc architecture. Is it well maintained? Does<br>it have porters? Does it have users? Does it still make sense
    to carry<br>along?<br><br>Another concern (DSA) which I have added and explained in the wiki<br>page is the lack of georedundancy for the 'mips' port. Verbatim copy<br>from wiki follows:<br>"mips: It has 5 buildds in the same datacenter, current
    hardware are<br>routers or development boards which makes it very difficult to ship to<br>other places. The host providing redundancy (lucatelli) at UBC-ECE<br>must be decomissioned ASAP, leaving the port in a situation of not<br>geographic
    redundancy. However advanced plans exists to deploy mips<br>hardware in other data centers RSN."<br><br>I'll keep you posted whenever there is progress on that area. I do not<br>believe it should be a blocker for release, but we must ensure geo<br>
    redundancy first.<br><span><br>&gt; Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch.<br><br></span>Could you please check with sparc64 porters? I think some of them<br>commented on the follow ups.<br><br>Regards,<br><span
    class="ecxHOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>&nbsp;Héctor Orón&nbsp; -.. . -... .. .- -.&nbsp; &nbsp;-.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.<br><br></font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div> </div></body>
    </html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geert Uytterhoeven@21:1/5 to Nelson H. F. Beebe on Mon Jun 20 23:40:01 2016
    On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Nelson H. F. Beebe <beebe@math.utah.edu> wrote:
    Recent traffic on this list has discussed Debian on PowerPC and
    big-endian vs little-endian.

    The next-generation US national laboratory facilities are to be based
    on PowerPC, and one source that I read mentioned little-endian, likely
    for binary file compatibility with files produced on Intel x86 and
    x86-64 CPUs: see

    Yeah, apparently it's cheaper to bootstrap a complete new little endian platform than to fix portability issues in existing software...

    Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

    Geert

    --
    Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

    In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
    -- Linus Torvalds

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)