Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
I've just done an initial install on a Alpha machine that was
originally setup with RH 4.2. I upgraded the machine to RH 5.0. I
then reworked and did the initial install of Debian hamm on another
partition and am now duel-booting. I have consideral experience with
Debian-i386, but do not consider myself an expert by any means.
Perhaps an above-average user.
I'd say you have a way to go. The base disks are way out of date. It
took considerable hacking to finally get the system current.
Not all packages in the hamm/binary-alpha will install. There are
several packages which depend on ldso which is not available to
I guess it depends on how close you really are to the i386 release. I
think for someone knowledgable, and a bit of work, an alpha release
could be possible.
I am running the Debian/hamm now on my system. My biggest problem is
getting the required passwork server running which was built on
libc5 (which is not available under hamm).
>Bdale Garbee <email@example.com> writes:
>> I'd like to propose that if a non-i386 architecture has a reasonable
>> installation process and base archive, plus .deb's for all packages
>> marked as 'standard' or higher in the i386 tree (modulo obvious
>> exceptions like lilo), that it be considered ready for inclusion in
>> a release.
>As one of maybe two alpha-porters who have never taken their alpha
>through the Debian installation process (my alpha has been running
>some form of Debian/Alpha for more than a year, and thus predates the
>install disks), I am wretchedly unqualified to speak to the first part
>of your suggestion.
>However, I think we could just about achieve everything marked
>standard or higher. Heck, we may already and not realize it. <Quick
>quinn-diff run> And, in fact, I find that we basically have. The
>following would need to be dealt with:
>I just did emacs19 today, ld.so doesn't apply, we're actually using a
>more up-to-date egcs, gdb4.17 has actually been released so 2.0
>shouldn't go out the door with a snapshot, and except for
>glibc---which I've been having some problems with---the rest are
>(Parenthetically, I think we should swap lprng for lpr, I'm not sure
>why cvs is standard, and emacs_19.34 should be removed from the
>> But on the debian-alpha list, I see some flailing since we don't
>> have a solid definition of what needs to be present for a release to
>> be considered ready, and without such a goal, it's hard to focus and
>> concentrate effort on what needs to be done.
>A very good point. It's hard to know when you've achieved something
>if you haven't picked out a measuring stick beforehand.
>So what do people think of the status of the boot disks?
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
|James D. Freels, P.E._i, Ph.D. |Phone: (423)576-8645 | | L | A |
|Oak Ridge National Laboratory |FAX: (423)574-9172 | H | I | L |
|Research Reactors Division |work e-m: firstname.lastname@example.org| F | N | P |
|P. O. Box 2008 |home e-m: email@example.com | I | U | H |
|Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6392|world's best neutrons | R | X | A |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com