Re: CD.

[Michael Schmitz <SCHMITZ@LCBVAX.CCHEM.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Hi,

>> 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.

Nice to hear that. 

>> 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.

That's one part of my concerns. So now you take the blame for things that break
(which isn't exactly easy to understand for the users because, after all, 
you didn't compile everything), let's hope that helps. We'll see that, anyway.

And we'll see how Debian is credited, OTOH.

>> 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.

Well, even that should have happened to me IIRC, but maybe I removed duplicates
manually from the mirror. Anyway, that's a non-issue with respect to real
life installations done by users after Debian/68k is released. Duplicate
packages with different versions just won't happen in a stable release. It's
again: unstable, don't use unless you know what you're doing etc. 

If that's the only remaining problem, I don't see the problem anymore. What
you're saying, in essence, is that resolving conflicts by dependency or by
duplicate packages in the current unstable was enough to make the regular
installation process work, and you did add another installation tool that 
replaces dselect (if I got that right). If that merits distributing Debian/68k
under another name, we'll se a bunch of other m68k 'distributions' in future
I guess.

	Michael


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .