Michael Schmitz <SCHMITZ@LCBVAX.CCHEM.BERKELEY.EDU> writes:
> >> Thanks for pointing that out. To me, it seems what you did is build a
> >> modularized kernel, added network config stuff to the ramdisk and call that
> >> a vastly improved installation tool. I'm still wondering why none of this
> >> was fed back into Debian/68k?? (Actually, I'm only half wondering, but why
> >Nothing was fed back, because nothing is finished yet. The network
> >script is pretty (98%) finished so that could be made public soon. I
> >would like to improove Debian/68k (and other archs), but Eagle has to
> >get a Distribution out. We have to make decisions and get stuff done
> >without waiting for Debian to solve Problems or to adapt ideas. If
> I wasn't asking you to wait for Debian to adapt your ideas. I was asking
> for information what you did add. We could have avoided a lot of that
> discussion and misunderstandings if Eagle had been present in the discussion
> from the beginning, instead of handing out information only after excessive
> bugging on the list.
Good News for you. It's now decided that we will use the GPL for the
scripts and programms we use for the Eagle Linux distribution. So you
will get as much feedback as you like.
> >Debian takes the ideas up or makes something better out of it,
> >fine. If Debian/m68k were stable the Eagle linux would be Debian
> >Linux. Also several People have discouraged firms to do an unstable
> >Debian distribution so Eagle wont do that eigther.
> But you're doing exactly that, in fact. You might add the installer, you might
> add some kind of warranty resulting from your tests while preparing the
> dostribution, but it still is the set of unstable Debian packages that we asked
> you not to release as Debian distribution. All I can see is that the label
> will be different.
It won't be Debian thats going to be blamed if something doesn't work,
that should be the difference. The people to blame if something is
broken is us and that will be made clear.
> As I said: never encountered these problems. Might have been to bogus
> dependency declarations (=broken package: unstable, don't use, yada yada) or
> a broken Packages.gz (again: unstable, don't use, yada yada) but fact is I
> installed the 'snapshot' from Dec. 20 (messing up a few file names due to
> using HFS, never mind) and it just didn't happen.
No, it happens when several versions of a package are present. If one
is unpacked it can be downgraded because its not configured.
May the Source be with you.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .
- Re: CD.
- From: Michael Schmitz <SCHMITZ@LCBVAX.CCHEM.BERKELEY.EDU>