* Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@acm.org> [030529 23:22]: > > That sounds great Jeffrey... and extra hands we can get would be great. > > > > It would be nice if you could pick up a few packages for porting off the > > list... I guess we will have to have some kind of way of tracking who is > > working on what. > > I'll start with pam. It must be getting late... I had a chuckle because I thought you sad pan. I think we will initially distribute files via alioth.debian.org. If you have/make an account I will add you to the developers of the debian-x86-64 project. > But what's the plan, exactly? I've read the x86-64 mails from the > debain-devel list but it isn't crystal clear. The emails that you have read are part of an 'official plan' that AMD requested we put together in order to get access to an Opteron machine they put aside for our use. It is also a big plus to have it to stay organized. > For example, why is patch in your list of standard packages? Patch > doesn't provide any libraries, so the i386 version should be fine. The goal is to port all libraries and tools required for sbuild first. Once we have sbuild, I think it will be a good idea to build enough packages that we could mimic a self sufficient 64-bit box. To get there we need packages important, required, and standard packages. So, no we don't need a 64-bit patch to build the packages, but we do need it eventually to have a minimal, but fully functional, 64-bit distribution. B. -- WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/
Attachment:
pgp4QeZmOxxx0.pgp
Description: PGP signature