Thanks to all who've replied so far. It sounds like we're generally where I thought we would be at this point in time: there are a number of people still using alphas (in particular, folks who have newer and better models than I), including some who expect to still be running theirs in three-years' time, but not so many that I think it makes sense to continue supporting a full Debian port of lenny+1 with all that entails (multiple always-on buildds+porter machines, ~20G of space used on the mirrors, headaches for maintainers when their package fails to build for any reason).
It's not a foregone conclusion that Debian should drop alpha for lenny+1; but even http://wiki.debian.org/alphaLennyReleaseRecertification doesn't list anyone other than me willing to do the work today, and I'm definitely not willing to be on the front line for lenny+1. So if lenny+1 for alpha is really something people want, someone will have to step up to do the work. Some alternatives to consider would be a minimal port of lenny+1 providing only the server packages; or else getting a team together to provide extended security support for lenny (preferably for /all/ archs, to share the benefits/work) beyond the normal 1-year oldstable cut-off. But these are again both solutions that require a commitment from the interested parties. Responses to several posts in-line below. On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:14:06PM +0200, Daniel Franganillo wrote: > We plan to maintain our Ds10(4) and as400(1) for a long time, they are > wonderful machines, and more important reliable. > We have a mail, server, Databases, Suvbersions, Apache, Backup-raids, > Trac, etc.. and we feel that the money we paid for them (10y ago?) was > well spent. > So...please, dont drop support on Alpha :P Can you quantify how long is "a long time" for you? I'm happy that Debian has helped you get 10 years (13, by the time lenny ends) out of this hardware! But beyond that point, is continuing to use that hardware really the most effective solution for you? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm interested to know under what circumstances it makes sense to continue running alpha hardware, instead of consolidating on current-generation amd64 hardware.) On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:30:08PM +0200, Gianluca Bonetti wrote: > I am a proud Linux user and an Alpha AXP fan (for what it means these > days...) > I think that having Linux support on Alpha is still a positive goal, > like having m68k support and taking care about 386/486/586 vintage > machines. > I am not interested into m68k, or vintage x86, but I like that there is > still some care about the really lower end of computing and for > architectures that have no hardware support by vendors, but still some > users around the world. So, it's partly with m68k in mind that I've started this thread when I did. I do not think that m68k has set a very good example; I have a lot of respect for many of the folks who have been m68k porters over the years, but the m68k port had become a burden for the Debian project as a whole long before the Vancouver meeting brought the issue to the forefront. I don't want alpha to go down that same road; I would like to see the port retired with dignity, and not become a source of resentment for the rest of Debian. I think we're at that point where we need to start planning its retirement in order for that to happen - while users still have 3 years to plan what they're going to do when support runs out, rather than having it come as a slap in the face and have us desperately trying to hang on to doing full Debian releases because users are caught unprepared. > Of course, running Linux on Alpha today means running Debian. Has Jay Estabrook's Red Hat Alpha build fallen by the wayside? Not that I'm seriously suggesting that anyone run Red Hat instead of Debian on their Alpha ;), just wondering what the status there is since I haven't heard from Jay in about a year. Also, there do appear to be some folks running Gentoo on Alpha. > What is your part of work in the Debian Alpha port? > Do you take care of daily installer builds, or have also to hack some > code? In practice, my current role is in the area of minor updates to keep the kernel and installer in shape for release. There is code hacking that *needs* to be done to keep alpha as a full-fledged port, but neither I nor anyone else is doing this work. Lenny will already ship without Java on alpha because no one was willing to fix the toolchain; and atlas has also been dropped recently. I'm not sure if X in lenny or sid currently works on alpha, but sid had problems last time I tried to get it working on the Matrox card in my alpha; and the Matrox framebuffer has been broken on alpha since before etch's release, with the result that console-based d-i installs on anything except English are kinda messy, IIRC. To keep the alpha port alive would not require a committment to fix *all* of these issues, but these are really a taste of things to come as alpha support continues to atrophy upstream due to lack of use and testing. As the alpha community continues to shrink, the work will become increasingly difficult for the porters who remain. > I have some Alphas (best machine a 2x500 DS20) and if I have some reason > to put them at work, I will be proud to do it. > Anyway, hacking the code could be a difficult task at times, but I don't > know how much work it takes you to do each build. The builds themselves take almost no effort on my part, they just require an alpha to be running with a copy of the debian-installer svn tree and an up-to-date sid install (chrooted is ok). If there's demand for it, I would even be happy to continue running the builds themselves on someone /else's/ alpha that already has to be powered on; but I have ethical objections to having an alpha powered on 24/7 just for this purpose :), and I won't do it if there aren't going to also be porters taking responsibility for package regressions. > Could the Alpha port live with an older installer? > Could it live with Lenny installer even when we would be at Lenny+1 or > Lenny+2, Lenny+3... ? This would not be releasable as a Debian port, no; it's a requirement for Debian releases that the port be self-installable, and not require some other OS (such as a previous version of Debian) to bootstrap it. On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:28:07AM -0800, James Zuelow wrote: > I'm not a coder, but I think I can work out how to make debs of tolerable > quality if someone is absolutely stuck with a firewall w/o compiler or the > ability to cross compile and needs help. > But that's a while off. Steve, when you say dropping the arch for Lenny+1, > what does that imply for Alpha when Lenny is oldstable? In what sense do you mean? Lenny as oldstable would still have security support on alpha, the same as all other architectures (assuming that we can still find sponsorship for the buildds - and many thanks to Tim Cutts and the Sanger Institute for providing this service for lenny to date!). But it would no longer be present in the 'stable' or 'testing' suites at that point, which among other things means that there would be no guaranteed upgrade path at all from lenny to sid, and therefore I would argue that we should not continue to take up space with this port in sid either. On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:11:14PM +0200, Adrian Zaugg wrote: > At my university there are still a hand full GS1280 and ES40/45 around, > which will be available in the future for giveaway, as there must be > somewhere else too. These machines are worthless without proper support. > Debian is one of the last useful OS for these machines, as stated in > another answer from someone else (*BSD are single CPU, if I remember > correctly). Debian Alpha doesn't work very well on SMP systems any more, either. Since etch, we've had problems with modules not being loadable due to toolchain changes, so you typically have to build a custom static kernel; and the very Alphas that have been used as the Debian buildds for the past year have also had problems when running under SMP. Again, I'm certainly not encouraging anyone to switch away from Debian; I would much rather see a trimmed-down version of Debian/Alpha distributed from debian-ports.org than that. :) But if there aren't enough folks to keep Debian running well on alpha, it may be inevitable. > From an ecological point of view, it is really questionable to run such > energy inefficient machines. But the production of a computer like an > Alpha also used a lot of energy, as such it should run over some years to > justify this. I don't know how long, but estimate quite long (five, > seven, ten years?). In English, we have an expression: "throwing good money after bad". Yes, there's an environmental cost associated with the initial production of the machine (not just in terms of energy but also in pollution), but that's already done and can't be undone. Computers can be had today that are more powerful *and* more energy efficient, for relatively little money - how long would a more energy-efficient machine have to run in place of your alpha, in order to pay for itself in electricity savings? For me, I know the answer is "not long". Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
