Re: Why has bo vanished from the archives?
> *-Tim Sailer (29 Jul)
> | On Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 01:54:12PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> | > I understand the fact that there is a stable->hamm and unstable->slink.
> | > But why can't the bo directory still be around without anything
> | > symlinked to it. By removing bo we are basically slamming the door on
> | > all the users who are unable to upgrade to hamm and still might need to
> | > get a package from bo. Sid is on the archives and it does not have a
> | > link to it, why not bo? If there needs to be a link besides the code
> | > name it could be linked from something like 'old' or 'previous' or
> | > 'unsupported' or whatever.
> | I removed bo from my mirror (llug.sep.bnl.gov) due to disk space.
> I understand that not all mirror sites will have the space to keep
> copies of all the archive, that is each mirrors choice. But I think
> at the very minimum the 'official' ftp site of ftp.debian.org should
> keep a copy of bo around. If I recall weren't buzz and rex each kept
> around for at least a little while before being removed?
In my opinion, *all* the old distribution versions should be kept
on-line somewhere. That is, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 should all be available
for download, no matter how ludicrous it might seem to do so. This could
be done with a CD changer, or even with tapes.
At the very least some recognized authority (Official Debian archivist?)
ought to have stored away a master CD-ROM which they can use to burn a
copy for someone on request (this could be done for a fee). Having a CD
or two around for each distribution shouldn't take that much physical
space, and I bet if we asked nicely, some reseller would be willing to
donate left over, out of date CDs to us.
Heck, I'll donate mine :-)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org