ARM release status
Back in December bdale suggested this criteria for ARM release,
henceforth known as the 'bdale release metric' or BRM.
> I personally believe that if every package of priority standard or higher in
> main is up to date (less those not relevant to the architecture, of course),
> then we can/should release.
We will also need boot-floppies to do initial installs. boot-floppies
2.2.7 was sort of usable. I'm building 2.2.8 today, we'll see.
Here is an up to date BRM chart.
12/25 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 01/11 03/16
32 22 1 0 0 5 0 required:out-of-date
5 5 5 5 5 5 3 required:uncompiled
12 10 0 0 0 2 0 important:out-of-date
3 3 1 1 1 1 0 important:uncompiled
26 23 1 0 0 3 1 standard:out-of-date
15 14 13 3 3 6 5 standard:uncompiled
454 430 430 260 159 82 33 optional:out-of-date
801 800 798 795 795 353 190 optional:uncompiled
93 92 92 91 91 16 4 extra:out-of-date
175 174 174 173 173 80 42 extra:uncompiled
Of the unbuilt or out of date BRM candidate packages we have...
[required:uncompiled] ld.so <-- quinn-diff says no, I say yes
[required:uncompiled] glibc <-- quinn-diff says no, I say yes
[required:uncompiled] amiga-fdisk-bf <-- m68k,ppc only
[standard:out-of-date] tetex-bin <-- normal churn, will be built soon
[standard:uncompiled] tetex-base <-- quinn-diff says no, I say yes
[standard:uncompiled] gpm <-- quinn-diff says no, I say yes
[standard:uncompiled] gdbm <-- old aout version
[standard:uncompiled] gdb
[standard:uncompiled] zlib <-- old aout version
Which leaves us with just one non-BRM-compliant package.
I will take a shot at making a gdb-arm today after the boot floppies.
WHAT WE STILL NEED
------------------
We need a crypto legal developer to build and upload the non-us
packages. I can't do those. (at the very least pgp, gpg, ssh)
We need someone with a RiscPC to make a rescue disk of some sort.
The generated boot floppies are probably close, but that first thing
that loads a kernel and root needs doing.
This weekend may be a good weekend to try some test installs.
--
Jim Studt, President
The Federated Software Group, Inc.
Reply to: