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

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

Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> 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.
> Thoughts?

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:

net/lpr_5.9-26.1.dsc [standard:libc6]
editors/emacs19_19.34-16.dsc [standard:libc6:X]
base/gzip_1.2.4-27.dsc [required:libc6]
base/ld.so_1.9.7-1.dsc [required:n/a]
devel/cvs_1.9.26-3.dsc [standard:libc6]
base/kbd_0.95-12.dsc [required:libc6]
base/shadow_970616-1.1.dsc [required:libc6]
x11/xfree86_3.3.2-3.dsc [standard:libc6:X]
admin/cron_3.0pl1-44.dsc [important:libc6]
base/e2fsprogs_1.10-14.dsc [required:libc6]
utils/sharutils_4.2-5.dsc [standard:libc6]
shells/tcsh_6.07.02-7.dsc [standard:libc6]
admin/at_3.1.8-2.1.dsc [important:libc6]
libs/glibc_2.0.7pre1-4.dsc [required:libc6]
base/procps_1.2.7-1.dsc [required:libc6:X]
devel/egcs_1.0.2-0.7.dsc [standard:libc6]
devel/gdb_4.16.98-1.dsc [standard:libc6]
editors/emacs_19.34-13.dsc [standard:libc6:X]

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
easily doable.

(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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: