Maybe alpha should be in hamm? (was: Re: Only m68k and i386 in hamm?)
Bdale Garbee <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'd like to propose that if a non-i386 architecture has a reasonable
> installation process and base archive, plus .deb's for all packages
> marked as 'standard' or higher in the i386 tree (modulo obvious
> exceptions like lilo), that it be considered ready for inclusion in
> a release.
As one of maybe two alpha-porters who have never taken their alpha
through the Debian installation process (my alpha has been running
some form of Debian/Alpha for more than a year, and thus predates the
install disks), I am wretchedly unqualified to speak to the first part
of your suggestion.
However, I think we could just about achieve everything marked
standard or higher. Heck, we may already and not realize it. <Quick
quinn-diff run> And, in fact, I find that we basically have. The
following would need to be dealt with:
I just did emacs19 today, ld.so doesn't apply, we're actually using a
more up-to-date egcs, gdb4.17 has actually been released so 2.0
shouldn't go out the door with a snapshot, and except for
glibc---which I've been having some problems with---the rest are
(Parenthetically, I think we should swap lprng for lpr, I'm not sure
why cvs is standard, and emacs_19.34 should be removed from the
> But on the debian-alpha list, I see some flailing since we don't
> have a solid definition of what needs to be present for a release to
> be considered ready, and without such a goal, it's hard to focus and
> concentrate effort on what needs to be done.
A very good point. It's hard to know when you've achieved something
if you haven't picked out a measuring stick beforehand.
So what do people think of the status of the boot disks?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org