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 consider myself an expert by any means. Perhaps an above-average user.
I'd say you have a way to go. The base disks are way out of date. It took considerable hacking to finally get the system current. Not all packages in the hamm/binary-alpha will install. There are several packages which depend on ldso which is not available to install. I guess it depends on how close you really are to the i386 release. I think for someone knowledgable, and a bit of work, an alpha release could be possible. I am running the Debian/hamm now on my system. My biggest problem is getting the required passwork server running which was built on libc5 (which is not available under hamm). >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 ready for inclusion in >> a release. >> >> Thoughts? > >As one of maybe two alpha-porters who have never taken their alpha >through the Debian installation process (my alpha has been running >some form of Debian/Alpha for more than a year, and thus predates the >install disks), I am wretchedly unqualified to speak to the first part >of your suggestion. > >However, I think we could just about achieve everything marked >standard or higher. Heck, we may already and not realize it. <Quick >quinn-diff run> And, in fact, I find that we basically have. The >following would need to be dealt with: > >net/lpr_5.9-26.1.dsc [standard:libc6] >editors/emacs19_19.34-16.dsc [standard:libc6:X] >base/gzip_1.2.4-27.dsc [required:libc6] >base/ld.so_1.9.7-1.dsc [required:n/a] >devel/cvs_1.9.26-3.dsc [standard:libc6] >base/kbd_0.95-12.dsc [required:libc6] >base/shadow_970616-1.1.dsc [required:libc6] >x11/xfree86_3.3.2-3.dsc [standard:libc6:X] >admin/cron_3.0pl1-44.dsc [important:libc6] >base/e2fsprogs_1.10-14.dsc [required:libc6] >utils/sharutils_4.2-5.dsc [standard:libc6] >shells/tcsh_6.07.02-7.dsc [standard:libc6] >admin/at_3.1.8-2.1.dsc [important:libc6] >libs/glibc_2.0.7pre1-4.dsc [required:libc6] >base/procps_1.2.7-1.dsc [required:libc6:X] >devel/egcs_1.0.2-0.7.dsc [standard:libc6] >devel/gdb_4.16.98-1.dsc [standard:libc6] >editors/emacs_19.34-13.dsc [standard:libc6:X] > >I just did emacs19 today, ld.so doesn't apply, we're actually using a >more up-to-date egcs, gdb4.17 has actually been released so 2.0 >shouldn't go out the door with a snapshot, and except for >glibc---which I've been having some problems with---the rest are >easily doable. > >(Parenthetically, I think we should swap lprng for lpr, I'm not sure >why cvs is standard, and emacs_19.34 should be removed from the >archive) > >> But on the debian-alpha list, I see some flailing since we don't >> have a solid definition of what needs to be present for a release to >> be considered ready, and without such a goal, it's hard to focus and >> concentrate effort on what needs to be done. > >A very good point. It's hard to know when you've achieved something >if you haven't picked out a measuring stick beforehand. > >So what do people think of the status of the boot disks? > >Mike. > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- /------------------------------------------------------------------\ |James D. Freels, P.E._i, Ph.D. |Phone: (423)576-8645 | | L | A | |Oak Ridge National Laboratory |FAX: (423)574-9172 | H | I | L | |Research Reactors Division |work e-m: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| F | N | P | |P. O. Box 2008 |home e-m: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I | U | H | |Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6392|world's best neutrons | R | X | A | \------------------------------------------------------------------/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]