On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:43:48PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> Oh please!! Unlike some people like you to believe, there exist no revisions
> other than CD revisions. There are no FTP revisions. FTP changes _much_ more
> than the CDs due to many security fixes.
Huh?
Security fixes go in security
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> It's almost impossible to remember all the little things that might go
> wrong as well, so encapsulating that knowledge in a regression test
> suit is definitely the way to go.
In which vein, it might be helpful to have test machines
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:39:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > Not for me...
> >
> > Life is nice isn't it?
> >
> >
> > (And then stop sending this "Not for me"-answers all the time or
> > something bad
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Not for me...
>
> Life is nice isn't it?
>
>
> (And then stop sending this "Not for me"-answers all the time or
> something bad could happend)
I would guess thats a mial loop, like an away message.
MfG
Go
On 17 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > WTF is the difference? Nothing but a naming scheme. It's still a change,
> > either way you do it, why do you want to nitpick the mechanism?
>
> Personally, I'd favour doing something that makes it as clear as
>
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> WTF is the difference? Nothing but a naming scheme. It's still a change,
> either way you do it, why do you want to nitpick the mechanism?
Personally, I'd favour doing something that makes it as clear as
possible that it was a CD production SNAFU, and tha
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:43:48PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
> > Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
> > since almost none of the boot1 fil
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
> Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
> since almost none of the boot1 files are on the image.
I'd hardly call this "completely broken". I guess yo
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
> > doesn't crash all the time. That's the main reason we didn't have any
> > time at all to check things, or for Phil to double check
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not for me...
Life is nice isn't it?
(And then stop sending this "Not for me"-answers all the time or
something bad could happend)
--
Peter
sendet am: Donnerstag, 17. August 2000 17:41
> An: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: WG: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
>
> Not for me...
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Annette Schweigardt
> AO
sendet am: Donnerstag, 17. August 2000 17:36
> An: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: WG: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
>
> Not for me
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Annette Schweigardt
> AO
sendet am: Donnerstag, 17. August 2000 17:11
> An: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
>
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian
Anthony Towns writes:
> Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
> doesn't crash all the time. That's the main reason we didn't have any
> time at all to check things, or for Phil to double check things with you
> as to how things should be done when the first sparc i
Hi,
a side note, but I think an important one.
Ben Collins wrote:
>We have to remember, vendors are burning these CD's almost as soon as
>we make them available. WE are costing them money when we fuck up, and
>it isn't thre fault because they expect these things to work when we
>m
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could blame myself, but the fact is the image was not created right (it
> needs to be done as either root, or under fakeroot, which requires the
> *entire* process be done in a single session, not multiple fakeroot
> incantations, which might be the caus
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:31:04AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Well, you get the point. I don't want to place blame. I just don't want to
> see this shit happen again. Here's what I want to see next time (2.2 r1):
Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
doesn't crash
I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
since almost none of the boot1 files are on the image.
Now I could blame this on Phil, who created the images, but that wouldn't
be right, since he can't b
18 matches
Mail list logo
