Re: Packages difference in different slink arches (was Re: slinkcd v0.95 m68k & Alpha organization)
On Sun 27 Dec 1998, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 19981226172714.A2194@eos.lugs.ch> you write:
> >On Fri, Dec 25, 1998 at 12:03:53AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >>Previously Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>> Anyway - one question, mainly for the -devel people I guess: should the
> >>> m68k and alpha versions of slink have the same number of packages as for
> >>> i386?
> >>
> >>No, since there are packages out there that are specific for a few
> >>architectures. Things like isapnp and hwtools come to mind. But the
> >>difference in your numbers sounds a bit larger that it should be..
Alpha at least doesn't (shouldn't) have any packages in the oldlibs
section, as the purpose of those isn't applicable on Alpha (Alpha was
always libc6-based).
> Hmmm, yes. I can see quite a few of those. Attached below are the diffs of
> the Package lists. I can see some obvious ones to be missing, like
> Xservers and cross-binutils and the like, but there are some very
> unexpected differences too...
I'd be interested in hearing the specific things you find unexpected,
instead of a list 1500 lines long of diffs that isn't very useful as-is.
Anyway, feel free to try building stuff on faure.debian.org!
Take a look at ftp://ftp.murphy.nl/pub/debian/alpha/diff for an up to
date overview of what's out of date or not compiled yet.
I've placed a couple of quick comments here:
> -Package: adasockets
There isn't any Ada available...
> -Package: altgcc
libc5 stuff.
> -Package: bin86
Obvious.
> -Package: cdwrite
Outdated, superceded by cdrecord. Not sure why this is in debian at all
anymore.
> -Package: clio
> -Package: clue
> -Package: cmucl
Don't build (either i386-specific or 32-bit specific)
> -Package: communicator-base-406
No netscape for alpha available, so these aren't much use either.
> -Package: crashme
Doesn't compile on alpha.
> -Package: ddd-dmotif
> -Package: ddd-smotif
No one has motif for alpha here.
> -Package: dosemu
Yeah, right.
> -Package: egcc
We call it gcc.
> -Package: g++272
We use egcs.
> -Package: gcc-i386-gnu
> -Package: gcc-m68k-linux
These two names suggest that some people don't know about naming
consistency.
> -Package: gstep-base
All the gstep stuff was only *just* moved from contrib to main...
> -Package: ibcs-base
ibcs is useless.
> -Package: ilu-javadev
> -Package: jdk1.1
> -Package: jdk1.1-dev
Is there java for alpha?
> -Package: iraf-common
No one wants to burn bandwidth on this.
> -Package: libjpeg6a
> -Package: libjpegg-dev
> -Package: libjpegg6a
We managed to get rid of libjpeg6a very soon after libjpeg6b was available.
> -Package: libpng0
Ditto.
> -Package: mutt
Mutt most certainly IS available!
> -Package: mutt-i
This was removed, right? On what version of the Packages file are you
basing this?
> -Package: navigator-base-406
See netscape comment.
> -Package: ncurses3.0
> -Package: ncurses3.0-altdev
Old, old....
> -Package: set6x86
Get serious...
> -Package: wu-ftpd-academ
Won't compile, has been superceded anyway, right?
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl | debian: paul@debian.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Reply to: