On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Michael Schmitz <schm...@biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote: > Hi All, > >> > Option 2: lenny-lite >> > Build lenny with base, build-essential, and buildd-required >> > packages. I can probably do this one myself if there's >> > interest. I'll probably include anything required for d-i >> > too. >> > >> >> Probably the sanest option, most of the base packages should simply >> build and allow a successful debootstrapping. > > Best option to get off etch in the short term, yes. >
We could start here, then work towards a general lenny-m68k release. >> > Option 3: lenny >> > Go ahead and try to do a lenny release. I think we have >> > nearly all the binary packages, but how to shove them into >> > an archive intelligently? I'm willing to help if anyone >> > knows how and can direct or is otherwise willing to lead. > > If someone can give specific guidance, I'd be willing to help as well, but I > will not have the resources to figure it all out from the source. > >> > >> >> Binary packages: Yes >> Matching versions: Not really > > So that would make it lenny-m68k, then. > >> I'd love to see a m68k lenny release however ... > > Seconded. > >> > Option 4: throw in the towel >> > Say it's time to retire m68k on debian. We have an ancient >> > glibc with borked threads. gcc-4.3 is fairly broken. A >> > number of packages need some bugs fixed, others need some >> > porting. Not so many helpers these days. Funny thing is with >> > aranym we have plenty of horsepower (although we need to fix >> > the fpu emulation) and with d-ports our buildds won't get >> > locked out of wanna-build. Kernel's probably in the best >> > shape it's been in a long time. > > Well, the kernel could use some attention as far as drivers are concerned > (SCSI > comes to mind). I'll deal with Atari issues anyway, and I'd give the Debian > kernel source patches a shot now that Geert has given us the proper base for > that. > > On the porting, toolchain and buildd front I've been largely silent in the > last > months - unfortunately, that won't change in the forseeable future. > The toolchain is actually not that bad of shape, TLS aside. Most of the issues should clear up once we have a more modern glibc :-/ > Helpers in those areas don't need to be Debian developers after our move to > ports? > You still need to be a DD to upload to the ports archive unless we want to forgo the possibility of recycling binaries if/should we return to the main archive. > Michael > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
