"J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Heikki Vatiainen wrote:
>
> > binary-powerpc-1_NONUS.iso
> > ==
> > dists/potato/main/binary-powerpc/otherosfs/smbfs_2.0.7-3.deb
> >2e2c1d222b3cdb9db70ebf09634994c2, correct is
> >92725d3d06262927fe
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Heikki Vatiainen wrote:
> binary-powerpc-1_NONUS.iso
> ==
> dists/potato/main/binary-powerpc/otherosfs/smbfs_2.0.7-3.deb
>2e2c1d222b3cdb9db70ebf09634994c2, correct is
>92725d3d06262927fee42029c308f84e
>
> binary-powerpc-3.iso
> ==
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:18:38AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > "J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In fact, I've just corrected my private copy of the Bin-2 image (how I love
> > > mc(1)! Offset 0x148554de), the new md5sum
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:18:38AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> "J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In fact, I've just corrected my private copy of the Bin-2 image (how I love
> > mc(1)! Offset 0x148554de), the new md5sum of the image is:
> >
> > be04cd6d17159d66978ad227b26ed17d bi
"J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact, I've just corrected my private copy of the Bin-2 image (how I love
> mc(1)! Offset 0x148554de), the new md5sum of the image is:
>
> be04cd6d17159d66978ad227b26ed17d binary-i386-2.iso
>
> Time to fix: <10 min, most of that used by cp and md5
On 20 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
[...]
> If I were to redo any/all of the CDs, it would only be after I replace
> almost all the hardware on the cdimage.d.o machine, and then check the
> checksums of all the archive mirror.
>
> I may be able to do that tomorrow, if we decide we need to urgen
On 20-Aug-2000 Philip Hands wrote:
> Heikki Vatiainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>It seems that i386 have at least one broken file, powerpc have at
> least 2, and alpha are not bootable without a minor fix.
>
> So that only leaves arm & powerpc without some reason (so far) for
> rebuilding t
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
> I say regenerate regardless.
i agree.
-jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I say regenerate regardless.
Phil.
On 20 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> Heikki Vatiainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > After checking all the CD images for all the architectures, I found
> > two more corrupt files. The sparc images I tested were
> > 2.2_rev0_CDa versions, the old 2.2_re
Heikki Vatiainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After checking all the CD images for all the architectures, I found
> two more corrupt files. The sparc images I tested were
> 2.2_rev0_CDa versions, the old 2.2_rev0 images were not tested.
> Testing included _only_ .deb files
>
> Here's what I f
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Heikki Vatiainen wrote:
> Maybe you should take another look ;-) c.d.o does have
> 2.2_rev0_CDa and that's where I got them yesterday. Since they
> were available, I thought it was appropriate to get them.
doh - sorry - must have missed spotting it when i looked, because
jason andrade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> out of curiousity - where are the "2.2_rev0_CDa" cds being produced ?
I can not give authorative answer since I'm not Phil, but my guess
is that they are/were also produced on cdimage.debian.org.
> i can't see any on cdimage which i thought was the aut
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Heikki Vatiainen wrote:
> After checking all the CD images for all the architectures, I found
> two more corrupt files. The sparc images I tested were
> 2.2_rev0_CDa versions, the old 2.2_rev0 images were not tested.
> Testing included _only_ .deb files
out of curiousity -
After checking all the CD images for all the architectures, I found
two more corrupt files. The sparc images I tested were
2.2_rev0_CDa versions, the old 2.2_rev0 images were not tested.
Testing included _only_ .deb files
Here's what I found.
binary-powerpc-1_NONUS.iso
14 matches
Mail list logo
