Adam Di Carlo writes: > > I'm a little worried that we don't have up-to-date boot-floppies for > Alpha and Sparc. Is there a plan to release these platforms a little > later than the x86 (and m68k?) release date?
This only my personal opinion, but I feel for the Alpha, releasing it one or two weeks after x86 would make sense. Changes in the source packages can sometimes introduce problems on the Alpha, so there is no way we can be exactly in sync (other than setting x86 on hold once it is finished). > Are there parties actively working on this for release? I don't see a > lot of activity. I know Loic Prylli is working on the Alpha stuff but > haven't seen any patches or builds for a while. Actually the main reason a new boot-floppies for Alpha has not been done is technical, the register_frame_info problems that occured on x86 with egcs have appeared with a slighlty different timing (because the problematic code involved in the source is not the same for x86 and alpha, and was not intiduced at the same time in the upstream code), and in a different way (as egcs is our main compiler, and reverting to gcc is not an option). The good thing is that the problem is basically solved. But as this problem had an impact about every exectuable generated, I did not try generate installation disks with "non-standard" executables. > I wouldn't mind having a cushion time after i386/m68k release to try to > get the documentation up to snuff for sparc/alpha. I've currently had > no time (and no patches submitted to me) to even put in the existing > platform documentation scattered around. > > Thoughts? Yes, Alpha documentation is still poor, that is the other reason releasing it only one week or two after the other would make sense. Regards, Loic
