Imager 4.0.2 or not? (was: client
netboot fails (rsync: failed to set times))
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrea,
>
> I've read all the responses and there are merits to both 1 and 2 as
> well as Bernard Li's response.
>
> - My vote goes for 2.
> - sho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrea,
>
> I've read all the responses and there are merits to both 1 and 2 as
> well as Bernard Li's response.
>
> - My vote goes for 2.
> - should not have binaries availble which are broken and this will
> fix the current problem without introducing any
>
te-users
Subject
[sisuite-users] [ RFC ] SystemImager 4.0.2 or not? (was: client netboot
fails (rsync: failed to set times))
Hi all,
it seems that someone is agree with me and someone is not about the
solution to
add the pre-release of rsync (3.0.0pre4) into the stable branch of
System
Hi all:
On 11/7/07, Andrea Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it seems that someone is agree with me and someone is not about the solution
> to
> add the pre-release of rsync (3.0.0pre4) into the stable branch of
> SystemImager
> and tag the new 4.0.2 stable ASAP (4.0.1, since ".1" is odd, is r
My vote is : 1
On Nov 8, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> it seems that someone is agree with me and someone is not about the
> solution to
> add the pre-release of rsync (3.0.0pre4) into the stable branch of
> SystemImager
> and tag the new 4.0.2 stable ASAP (4.0.1, since
Hi all,
it seems that someone is agree with me and someone is not about the solution to
add the pre-release of rsync (3.0.0pre4) into the stable branch of SystemImager
and tag the new 4.0.2 stable ASAP (4.0.1, since ".1" is odd, is reserved for
development pre-releases).
So, probably this is the
