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-2.7.2.1.
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.
Great.
Mike.
--
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: