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

Re: Packages difference in different slink arches (was Re: slinkcd v0.95 m68k & Alpha organization)

On Sun 27 Dec 1998, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In article <19981226172714.A2194@eos.lugs.ch> you write:
> >On Fri, Dec 25, 1998 at 12:03:53AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >>Previously Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>> Anyway - one question, mainly for the -devel people I guess: should the
> >>> m68k and alpha versions of slink have the same number of packages as for
> >>> i386?
> >>
> >>No, since there are packages out there that are specific for a few
> >>architectures. Things like isapnp and hwtools come to mind. But the
> >>difference in your numbers sounds a bit larger that it should be..

Alpha at least doesn't (shouldn't) have any packages in the oldlibs
section, as the purpose of those isn't applicable on Alpha (Alpha was
always libc6-based).

> Hmmm, yes. I can see quite a few of those. Attached below are the diffs of
> the Package lists. I can see some obvious ones to be missing, like
> Xservers and cross-binutils and the like, but there are some very
> unexpected differences too...

I'd be interested in hearing the specific things you find unexpected,
instead of a list 1500 lines long of diffs that isn't very useful as-is.
Anyway, feel free to try building stuff on faure.debian.org!

Take a look at ftp://ftp.murphy.nl/pub/debian/alpha/diff for an up to
date overview of what's out of date or not compiled yet.

I've placed a couple of quick comments here:

> -Package: adasockets

There isn't any Ada available...

> -Package: altgcc

libc5 stuff.

> -Package: bin86


> -Package: cdwrite

Outdated, superceded by cdrecord. Not sure why this is in debian at all

> -Package: clio
> -Package: clue
> -Package: cmucl

Don't build (either i386-specific or 32-bit specific)

> -Package: communicator-base-406

No netscape for alpha available, so these aren't much use either.

> -Package: crashme

Doesn't compile on alpha.

> -Package: ddd-dmotif
> -Package: ddd-smotif

No one has motif for alpha here.

> -Package: dosemu

Yeah, right.

> -Package: egcc

We call it gcc.

> -Package: g++272

We use egcs.

> -Package: gcc-i386-gnu
> -Package: gcc-m68k-linux

These two names suggest that some people don't know about naming

> -Package: gstep-base

All the gstep stuff was only *just* moved from contrib to main...

> -Package: ibcs-base

ibcs is useless.

> -Package: ilu-javadev
> -Package: jdk1.1
> -Package: jdk1.1-dev

Is there java for alpha?

> -Package: iraf-common

No one wants to burn bandwidth on this.

> -Package: libjpeg6a
> -Package: libjpegg-dev
> -Package: libjpegg6a

We managed to get rid of libjpeg6a very soon after libjpeg6b was available.

> -Package: libpng0


> -Package: mutt

Mutt most certainly IS available!

> -Package: mutt-i

This was removed, right? On what version of the Packages file are you
basing this?

> -Package: navigator-base-406

See netscape comment.

> -Package: ncurses3.0
> -Package: ncurses3.0-altdev

Old, old....

> -Package: set6x86

Get serious...

> -Package: wu-ftpd-academ

Won't compile, has been superceded anyway, right?

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: