On 2016-08-17 22:05 +0200, niels@thykier.net wrote: > Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release > architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release > architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of > 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following > before Friday, the 9th of September: > > * Which architectures are you committing to be an active porter for? arm64, armhf, (and armel in maintenance mode). > * Please describe recent relevant porter contributions. arm64 bootstrap, much initial package porting, bugreps and NMUs. arm64 buildd admin. Backup onsite admin for build machines at ARM site. multiarch, bootstrapping, cross-building and cross-toolchain work. > * Are you running/using Debian testing or sid on said port(s)? yes, but not on main daily usage machines due to criminal lack of dogfooding at ARM meaning no-one makes suitable hardware yet. One day... > * Are you testing/patching d-i for the port(s)? Yes, regularly, as I get hardware to test. > * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change > also apply to this port? [0] This is probably not well-tested on arm64, but it should work fine, with some (believed-to-be-small) performance cost, so defaulting to it seems sensible. I understand that the performance penalty on armhf/armel is significantly larger. Some testing to see whether it is a reasonable tradeoff would be a good idea. I am a DD Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature