Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 archive) > 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? Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]