Is that correct? I ask because dinstall currently installs packages
into hamm and slink by installing it into the former and symlinking it
to the later. This causes unnecessary mirror traffic for those archs
that will only be released with 2.1 because I must later move binary-*
for those to slink
On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 11:03:10AM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> Is that correct? I ask because dinstall currently installs packages
> into hamm and slink by installing it into the former and symlinking it
> to the later. This causes unnecessary mirror traffic for those archs
> that will only be relea
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I can see we only have disadvantages supporting
> hamm-powerpc. (no regular uploads, extra handling of security
> fixes to non-supported versions, frozen of _really unstable_
> binary set etc.)
I would make dinstall just throw all uploads fo
On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 02:23:12AM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As far as I can see we only have disadvantages supporting
> > hamm-powerpc. (no regular uploads, extra handling of security
> > fixes to non-supported versions, frozen of _really unstable_
[crossposted to debian-alpha]
On Tue 28 Apr 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
[I had to read the original message via the archive, as the mailhost
here was screwed up yet again and discarded all messages arriving this
weekend :-( ]
About Alpha:
There's been a lot of porting going on for Alpha, however,
Paul Slootman wrote:
> There's been a lot of porting going on for Alpha, however, I can't
> really say that the number of packages that need to be ported to Alpha
> has been decreasing since the freeze; every time 20 packages are
> uploaded for Alpha, there are 22 new packages for i386 :-(
I
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, I'm still undecided as to whether 2.0 should go out for Alpha.
> Anyone else have opinions?
I think we should leave it out of 2.0, with the caveat that we should
nevertheless start referring to it as a full-fledged port---and once
we get further
>
> There's been a lot of porting going on for Alpha, however, I can't
> really say that the number of packages that need to be ported to Alpha
> has been decreasing since the freeze; every time 20 packages are
> uploaded for Alpha, there are 22 new packages for i386 :-(
Thats the reason for
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sounds good.
I know it sounds good. I just want to be sure that's it's the right
thing to do. :)
So my understanding is that only i386 and m68k are to be official 2.0
releases. alpha (and other) will wait for 2.1.
Guy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 10:02:56AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I agree with this and it's been very frustrating to try to get things
> ported over (fyi, for the x86 folks). Also, often, new upstream sources
Is there an alpha machine with accounts available so that we i386
maintainers
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there an alpha machine with accounts available so that we i386
> maintainers could try doing alpha compiles ourselves?
No. The machines that most alpha developers have available are either
not well connected, in environments that require more securit
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: Finally, realize that packages-wise, we probably rival RedHat's Alpha
: port---something on the order of 800+ packages are available on the
: Alpha. However, that's *half* of the number available in Debian/i386.
That raises an interesting question, tha
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking for binary-powerpc there will not be 2.0. I hope we'll
> be ready for 2.1. I wonder if it would be useful to remove
> binary-powerpc from hamm completely and only work on slink.
Speaking of the powerpc distribution, how's it doing? Is there
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 read
I've just done an initial install on a Alpha machine that was
originally setup with RH 4.2. I upgraded the machine to RH 5.0. I
then reworked and did the initial install of Debian hamm on another
partition and am now duel-booting. I have consideral experience with
Debian-i386, but do not conside
Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ ... ] ld.so doesn't apply [ ... ]
Upgrade your quinn-diff :-) From 0.31's ChangeLog.main :-
| Sun Apr 12 21:33:14 1998 James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| * Packages-arch-specific (ldso): exclude alpha.
(Maybe it should also be exc
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ ... ] ld.so doesn't apply [ ... ]
> Upgrade your quinn-diff :-) From 0.31's ChangeLog.main :-
Yeah, but I've been meaning to feed back my changes in one block
rather than in dribs and drabs, no time, e
Is there any reason we couldn't do a delayed debian-hamm-alpha release?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the subject of bootdisk readiness: I spent a couple days about 2 months
ago trying to get Debian onto my alpha pc164lx. Basically, none of the
problems I encountered resulted from features in MILO or the bootdisks
themselves. They were all due to misinterpretation of the instructions on
my part
Raul Miller writes:
> Is there any reason we couldn't do a delayed debian-hamm-alpha release?
I was also thinking about that. As i386 seems to be the "leading
arch" (sorry for others, no offense intended), we could IMHO release
it first (maybe together with m68k ?), and then release hamm/alpha o
At 00:31 +0100 1998-04-30, James Troup wrote:
>Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [ ... ] ld.so doesn't apply [ ... ]
>
>Upgrade your quinn-diff :-) From 0.31's ChangeLog.main :-
>
>| Sun Apr 12 21:33:14 1998 James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>|
>| * Packages-arch-specifi
21 matches
Mail list logo
