Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)

To: "James D. Freels" <fea@ornl.gov>, mdorman@law.miami.edu
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
From: Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:16:43 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 19980429221643.21451@hazel>
Mail-followup-to: "James D. Freels" <fea@ornl.gov>, mdorman@law.miami.edu, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] m0yUdtN-000Jn1C@fea.rrd.ornl.gov>; from James D. Freels on Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 04:55:49PM -0400
References: <[🔎] ylfjd8e0qs0k.fsf@law.miami.edu> <[🔎] m0yUdtN-000Jn1C@fea.rrd.ornl.gov>

Is there any reason we couldn't do a delayed debian-hamm-alpha release?

-- 
Raul


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
  - From: Yann Dirson <ydirson@a2points.com>

References:
- Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
  - From: Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@law.miami.edu>
- Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
  - From: "James D. Freels" <fea@ornl.gov>

Prev by Date: Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
Next by Date: debian kernel patches break miata kernels and warps X !?
Previous by thread: Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
Next by thread: Re: Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread