[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alpha packages

On Aug 30, Marc Singer wrote
> It seems to me that there is a critical path for development.
> Before we can port the niceties such as X, we need the compiler,
> libraries, and binutils.

How do you think X got there if we didn't have the compiler, libraries
and binutils? :-)

I mean, sure, there's libraries that probably haven't been recompiled
yet, but those get recompiled as needed.

> Too, it seems to me that these should be simple recompiles, no?

Not necessarily.  Linux-Alpha-ELF is not yet a target in any released
gcc---support exists only as a patchset derived from gcc-

And, to clarify a bit the stuff about libg++, the problem seems to be
with the current patched gcc's c++ support, rather than libg++
itself.  Obviously at some point in the past I was able to recompile
libg++.  I now am not.  I can't say for certain what's at fault, since
quite a bit changed.

> In reading the Debian FAQ, it looks as if it is organized as one
> package, one maintainer.  Don't we have one package, one
> architecture, one maintianer?

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.  There's lots
of talk (but unfortunately little action) about having non-Intel
machines that primary maintainers could log into for the purposes of
recompiling packages.

> I'm looking into the approved-developer thing and hope to accomplish
> it next week.  I have a couple of idle UDBs and can set them
> compiling.


Don't touch that!  It's the History Eraser Button

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: