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

Re: Preparing for the freeze (was: Obsolete packages in main/oldlibs)



On Tue 22 Sep 1998, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
> On 22 Sep 1998, Robin Stephenson wrote:
> 
> > What exactly are these problems and what on Earth makes you think
> > people using Linux on Alpha don't do a lot of compiling?  I'd have
> > thought it was the *opposite*.
> 
> I agree with this point of yours.  I expect and want people on the Alphas
> to compile more (I think everyone should learn to code).

Well, I think that most people who want to specifically do compiling,
won't get an Alpha; a similarly priced intel machine is much faster
at compiling.  Unfortunately compiling on Linux/Alpha currently not
optimal, and I simply cannot see the logic in not releasing Debian/Alpha
just because the compiler (very) sometimes throws a fit.

What I hear of people getting an Alpha and putting Linux on it, is
graphics stuff (e.g. gimp, rendering) and mathematical calculations
and that sort of thing (which reminds me, there are a _lot_ of math
packages not yet compiled; that's more important IMHO!).

> >   Apropos of compilers, will the egcs bundled with slink be capable of
> > compiling the kernel?  It would be rather unpleasant to have to
> > continue dealing with a RedHat-style gcc 2.7.3.2/egcs foo.bar compiler
> > hodgepodge.
> 
> Yes, the current and all of our past egcs iterations can compile the
> kernel.

I've been running 2.0.36pre2 for ten days now, compiled with the
previous egcs version (a new one was uploaded yesterday, right?)

> 
> > Well, I'm not so sure that'd be a bad thing.  Maybe waiting a couple
> > of months would allow things like libc6, egcs (perhaps even gnome...)
> > to settle down a bit?
> 
> Not really.  The x86'ers are churning out packages so fast that it's hard
> to keep up as is.  If we were gonna wait, we might as well wait forever
> because they're never gonna stop or slow down.

Additionally, those "important" packages are just a couple, and
compile pretty well AFAIK. It's the dozens if not hunderds of little
other packages that haven't been ported yet that cause the problems;
I find myself spending a lot of time debugging debian/rules etc.
Luckily most maintainers are more than willing to integrate the patches
I send to the BTS, so that the next time round there are less problems.

> > Good point.  I got their 5.1 alpha distribution, and have had problems
> > (understatement).  The libjpeg debacle was the last straw -- I'm about
> > to switch to Debian.  To be honest, I don't care too much about a

Please explain about "the libjpeg debacle" ?  I'm wondering if we don't
have the same problem :-)   although I've been spending time to
recompile packages that depended on old libjpeg versions (most are now
only dependent on libjpeg6b).

> > couple of rough edges -- I'll almost certainly be buying a slink
> > CD-ROM in any case.  It can't be worse than RedHat's 5.1.  I just hate

The question is whether one will be available if it's not officially
released...  that said, I could send people cd-recordables of the
current snapshot for cost (just have to figure out the payment in case
of international shipments :-)

> > PS Would it be worth me bringing a UDB from home to a network to test
> >    installs, etc before the slink release?  I'm prepared to put some
> >    time in if it's useful.
> 
> Absolutely. We desperately need documentation, so if you'd like to work on
> that based on your install experiences, I know it would be GREATLY
> appreciated.

Hear, hear!


Paul Slootman
-- 
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl | debian: paul@debian.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software,   Enschede,   the Netherlands


Reply to: