On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > It's probably a bad idea to make it a .deb. > The problem isn't the building of the files. That either works or > gives a build failure which can then be fixed. (Which would already be > a big advantage [to see it fail and how].) Uh, if you don't already have it building on your own machines, that's what you need to be working on. If it's alreadying building on your own machines, there's no big advantage in seeing how it fails on buildds. > The problem is how to get the build floppy images, tftp images, cdrom.iso > images into ftp.debian.org automatically. Encapsulating them in a deb > would make it automatic but noone realy likes that. You upload it as a bunch of byhand .tgz's with a signed .changes file. > Is disks-<arch> the right name if we include the small cdrom images? ftp.d.o is the right place for the source files to create the cdrom images. The cdrom images themselves should go on cdimage.debian.org. Depending on what exactly is going on, it might be appropriate to have nothing more than the udebs on ftp.debian.org and move all the disk and cd images onto cdimage.d.o. (A concern with the installer stuff is that its source isn't self contained so the .dsc and .debs can get updated, without the disk images being updated too, which can be bad in various ways. Moving that problem outside of the archive proper can give you some better ways of dealing with it) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgpAV1u19pJbd.pgp
Description: PGP signature