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

installation images for ports (was: Re: problem with page /ports/powerpc/)



Hello

El 03/11/17 a las 09:33, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz escribió:
> Hi Laura!
> 
> Can you please mention that both powerpc and ppc64 (and even powerpcspe) are available through Debian Ports?
> 
> We are maintaining installer images for ports here:
> 
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports

Sorry but I'm not sure how to handle that request. I'm not familiarized
with ports and Power PC architectures, and I see that:
- http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports does not list powerpc
- https://www.debian.org/ports does not list ppc64
- the powerpcspe entry in www.debian.org/ports leads to a wiki page
https://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort, not a web page

and...
> 
> The same applies to alpha, hppa, m68k, sh4, sparc64 and x32.
> 
> Note: We don’t have installation images for some of the architectures yet, but that’s being worked on.
> 

This makes me think about writing that info not in each particular
port's page, but maybe in the main www.debian.org/ports/index page,
right between "List of other ports" and the actual list?

In any case, I'm a bit clueless about the specific wording. My proposal
would be the attached diff (to the general ports page,
www.debian.org/ports/index)

What do you think?

Cheers



> Thanks,
> 
> Adrian
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>>> El 01/11/17 a las 10:57, Jonathan Dowland escribió:
>>> I think the powerpc ports page needs some reworking for clarity. It
>>> currently states
>>>
>>>    "It first became an official release architecture with Debian
>>>    GNU/Linux 2.2 (potato) and has retained that status ever since."
>>>
>>> However the "PowerPC" architecture, which was the one introduced in 2.2,
>>> was dropped after Jessie, so the last supported version is Debian 8.9.
>>>
>>> The page goes on to link to some release notes[1] which reinforce this
>>>
>>>    "Debian 9 regrettably removes support for the following architecture:
>>>    PowerPC (powerpc)"
>>>
>>> Part of the confusion is the conflation of "powerpc" and "ppc64el",
>>> which are the relevant architecture code-names. The page does have a
>>> sub-heading for ppc64el specifically, but the structure implies that the
>>> first section ("Debian for PowerPC") is relevant to both.
>>>
>>> This may seem nit-picky but I was genuinely confused when trying to find
>>> out what the latest version supported for my 32 bit Power PC.
>>>
>>> P.S.: I'd make a suggested fix myself if the web sources were wiki pages
>>> or in git instead of CVS, but I don't have the time to deal with CVS
>>> right now, sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/powerpc/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#idm45867730651312
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm attaching a diff to the /ports/powerpc/index.wml page that hopefully
>> helps to clarify. CC'ing the debian-powerpc mailing list for the case
>> they have comments, or they prefer to do themselves a complete rewrite
>> of the page ;-)
>>
>> If there are no objections, I'll commit these changes in a week or so.
>>
>> Best regards
>> -- 
>> Laura Arjona Reina
>> https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
>> <index.wml.diff>
> 

-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
Index: index.wml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/ports/index.wml,v
retrieving revision 1.133
diff -u -r1.133 index.wml
--- index.wml	27 Jun 2017 21:59:55 -0000	1.133
+++ index.wml	3 Nov 2017 09:19:04 -0000
@@ -140,6 +140,14 @@
 <toc-add-entry name="portlist-other">List of other ports</toc-add-entry>
 <br />
 
+<div class="tip">
+<p>
+ There are non-official installation images available for some of the following ports in
+ <a href="http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports";>http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports</a>.
+ Those images are maintained by the corresponding Debian Port Teams.
+</p>
+</div>
+
 <table class="tabular" summary="">
 <tbody>
 <tr>

Reply to: