Re: release.sh - I cannot do it.
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
Ben> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 06:48:47PM -0800, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
>>
Ben> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 03:05:14AM -0800, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am not going to be able to finish what I started on that script.
>> >> It's a total kludge to have to move the files into place like that.
>> >> The Makefile ought to put them where they belong to begin with.
>> >>
>> >> Revert it, fix it, do what you will with it. I'm not for this.
>> >> `release.sh' is a crock.
>>
Ben> Are you saying you broke it and are leaving it for some one else to mess
Ben> with?
>>
>> Useing a script to move the files into a release stage tree like that
>> is a crock. The Makefile and scripts that build the images should
>> put them where they belong to begin with.
>>
>> I have to look for work this week. I will not have time to work on
>> boot floppies anymore. I'm behind on my bills and have to do
>> something about that or I'll be living out of a backpack by spring.
>>
>> As far as `br_woody_exp' goes, if you don't like it lump it. I think
>> that what needs to be done in `boot-floppies' is that the build
>> system needs to be overhauled and that's what I've started in that
>> branch. I could not do what I did on the trunk right now since it is
>> being used for Potato. It was a choice between starting a repository
>> of my own and vendor tracking, or creating a branch in the shared CVS
>> repository. If you don't want my help or don't like my work, say so
>> and I'll split.
Ben> What we don't want is developers coming in and changing things so
Ben> drastically at the expense of delaying release for no real gain in the end
Ben> result. What we had worked, and now it doesn't. The fact that you are now
Ben> telling us you wont have time to fix it, is irresponsible on your part.
Ben> THe entire release hinges on working boot-floppies, and leaving it in this
Ben> state is simply wrong.
It would be irresponsible to sit here at home all day working for
free when I should be out earning money to pay my bills and save for
college.
You were not on IRC yesterday when we decided that I should check in
what I had, broken or not, so that the others could help get it
working.
Ben> I don't personally like to refuse help, but if you continue to lack the
Ben> responsibility you have to fellow developers, then I would just as soon
Ben> not ask for help. You breaking this and running out on the problem is not
Ben> our fault. Heck, the whole idea of CVS is so you can develop locally, then
Ben> not screw up everything else in the mean time, and on top of that Adam
Ben> asked that we revert to fixing bugs to stabalize the boot floppies, not
Ben> change the whole system around to satisfy somes ones pet peaves.
Mail me a check, and I won't have to "run out on the problem".
It had to be changed because `dbootstrap' was looking for a
nonexistant file. It was looking for a file like `rescue-2.2.14.bin'
rather than for plain `rescue.bin' because of the "kver_suffix" and
the hard coded KVER that it had before I performed the minor surgery
on "main.c". The /proc/sys/kernel/osrelease did not match the KVER
built into `dbootstrap', so it added the suffix. Perhaps it only
showed up in the CD-ROM I built? It was when installing into a
vmware from my second try CD burn that I discovered this bug. Please
browse http://cvs.debian.org and look at what I did with "main.c" and
"dbootstrap.h". Read the spec I emailed to the debian-boot list a
few days ago, and see how the files are to be named and such... Is
that a destabalizing modification???
Reply to: