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

Re: An BIG request for people that will working on powerpc packages!!

On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 01:11:14PM +0100, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> > > If you will work on powerpc packages for debian in the main stream (not contrib
> > > or non-free):
> > > Please, please ask for it!! And if you don't like it to ask: Be sure you don't
> > > overwrite packages on master's Incoming.
> > 
> > How do i ask, do we send mail to this list ? who is responsible for that ?
> Me. Or if you'll setup an second autobuilder ... :-)

Hello, ...

i will try to compile the gimp1.1 package this week, is it ok ? we
only have gimp1.0.2 actually, and i would like to get ride of
glib/gtk1.0.x stuff on my system.

> > when will there be an official glibc-2.1 package, so that we can have system as
> > new as powerpc.debian.org. For what packages is that critical ?
> Possible in two weeks.

if i understood correctly, you are autobuilding packages with
glibc2.1, while every other debian/ppc user has older versions of
lgibc arround ? does it not cause problem ? 

> > I am building glib1.1.x and gtk1.1.x and maybe the imlib that goes on top of
> > that. I have a system that is almost daily upgraded to latest packages in sid,
> > is it ok to do maintianer uploads of this stuff ? i don't think the autobuilder
> > builds this stuff (maybe imlib and glib, but surely not gtk+. Anyway, the
> He - the autobuilder - gets all packages! And all successful build packages are
> uploaded! If you miss one, then it is not compile-able!! 

why then is there no gtk library built by the autobuilder (because
	i am faster than him ?) and how do you handle the fact that
glib1.1.x must be installed when autobuilding gtk1.1.x ?

> Another reason for delay is: We (porters) have decieded that we compile only
> packages that are available on any debian mirror (not anymore in Incoming).
> Soem packages gets very fast insorted some not. We cannot trust the 
> packages in Incoming!!!

i only recompile stuff on my personal debian mirror on my syjet,
so this should cause no problem ...

> > gtk+/glib situation is a mess, I don't understand why the maintainer makes new
> > packages for every version of this stuff, instead of doing two packages
> > (glib/gtk-official lets say current 1.1.16 or something like that, put it so
> >  the dev stuff can go in a place apart, and a glib/gtk-beta, that is the newest
> >  version, and which -dev packages don't conflict with the previous ones.)
> Thats mainly a problem of 'unstable'.

yes, but there is no reason that there is a gtk1.1.7, a gtk1.1.8,
a gtk1.1.9, ..., gtk1.1.16 packages arround, that is like you
wanted to do a different packages for each version of glibc ...
very messy, anyway, i guess this is a debian-devel issue, ...

> > Do you need anything for the linux-apus kernel ?
> Compiles the native linux-2.2.1 source for apus -- without any patches?

I don't have the native linux-2.2.1 source. The actual apus source
tree is the m68k source tree (which was synced in 2.2.0, but there
are still some stuff left out) with an apus patch applied to it.

I heard Jesper made lots of synchronization with the official
trees, but don't know much about the details. Maybe i will try it
out. Do you wanted to do a per arch kernel or an generic one ?
anyway, this is just for the floppy disks, or maybe a directory
which would contain boothack, a small script, the kernel and a
ramdisk, and maybe a little amigaos script to configure the
boothack launching script ?

Another thing that occured to me would be to make a amigaos
install debian package, which would contain the a subdirectory of
/boot, which would in reality be an affs mounted partition, and
contain the above mentioned stuff ? Maybe even with some
Startup-sequence stuff so that the boothack script is launched
automatically at startup (we don't have lilo yet ...)

> > >  - After that: boot-floppies; but can't test it for pmac, prep or apus
> > 
> > boot-floppies for apus ? remember we have only 880KB floppies ...
> What is say: i can't test it :-)))   No, first step is to have a newer
> base2.1 or base2.2 tar file (available and correct).

Yes, ... 

i would gladly help on any of these stuffs. ...

> > >  - updating the powerpc webpage
> > 
> > i will propose a project to some of my students that will consist of making a
> > web/mail system to better diseminate this kind of information, like put the
> > failing packages data on a web pages, make reservations for package compiling
> > and so on. If someone choose the project this could help ...
> This will be great!! We have something like this ... but i must write an
> short message for every package then and the maitainer has then only this
> and not the 'compile.log' file. The problem is the dynamic adding and 
> removing of links or others to such files. But the main problem is the big
> ammount of missing packages (ok, only 10% now), but if we get under 1%
> this is then no problem anymore. 

ok i will propose it, don't know if some one will like to do it,
but lets see ...



Reply to: