Re: Debian-Alpha port ideas...please read (long)
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Given that Debian as a whole wants to have a single source
> tree, it would be best to discuss it with the policy
> setters, yes. I'm not up-to-date on the what-and-why of the
> g libraries, but even if it means more work for the Alpha
> team, we shouldn't deviate from normal Debian practice.
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, the "g" designation isn't really
needed on our end and has already caused some problems on my system at
least (not to mention on the dselectability of the tree on master). On
the other hand, I understand the need to keep things "consistent" from a
unified source point of view. That's why I figured I'd ask around here to
see what everyone else thought.
> BTW, are the Alpha packages on master compiled from the
> respective source packages, or have the sources been
> patched? If our Alpha stays up (been up for almost a day
> now, although mostly idle), I'd like to experiment with
> setting up a mirror-sources-and-compile-with-fakeroot system
> on it, but that fails if the packages don't compile.
For the most part, most packages compiled without patches. Those that
required patching....I have stored the patches away waiting to see the
libc6 ports from the official maintainers. If their changes fix the
problems, then I just repackage and go on from there. If they require
further patching, I've been submitting them via the bug tracking system.
Mostly, the only thing we need to submit is Alpha-ism patches UNLESS the
package(s) haven't been ported to glibc yet.
Your idea of mirroring source and offering fakeroot is a fantastic idea.
I highly suggest mirroring Incoming as well since alot of important things
are detained there that we could recompile and upload as well.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .