On Fri, Apr 03, 1998 at 02:56:05PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
>
> What is the general consensus about the stability of each of these
> architectures (powerpc, alpha, and sparc)? Should they be release with
> the i386 and m68k versions as 2.0 or should that wait until a later time
> (perhaps 2.1)?
Juan Cespedes wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 1998 at 02:56:05PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> >
> > What is the general consensus about the stability of each of these
> > architectures (powerpc, alpha, and sparc)?
>
> To the Sparc developers: We still don't have X packages, we
> have no working C++
Michael Alan Dorman writes:
>
> Alpha is stable, but not feature-complete.
>
> I could be convinced either way.
>
> Mike.
>
Yes, true, but I doubt that Redhat is "feature complete".
Work that needs to be done on alpha for a release is for the base
disks, Documentation for base disk
On Fri, Apr 03, 1998 at 02:56:05PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
>
> What is the general consensus about the stability of each of these
> architectures (powerpc, alpha, and sparc)?
To the Sparc developers: We still don't have X packages, we
have no working C++, and we have some problems with
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the general consensus about the stability of each of these
> architectures (powerpc, alpha, and sparc)? Should they be release with
> the i386 and m68k versions as 2.0 or should that wait until a later time
> (perhaps 2.1)?
Alpha is stable, but no
Please include me on any replies since I don't actually subscribe to this list.
What is the general consensus about the stability of each of these
architectures (powerpc, alpha, and sparc)? Should they be release with
the i386 and m68k versions as 2.0 or should that wait until a later time
(perha
6 matches
Mail list logo
