Re: successful installation with 2.3.5 boot-floppies
> I was under the impression the boot-floppy disks were being based on
> packages in sid (busybox, debootstrap, etc) and used to install packages
> from woody (dpkg.deb, bash.deb, libc6.deb, etc). This still seems the
> sensible thing to do, to me, but stuff I read seems to indicate the
> opposite is happening?
FWIW I agree with aj as to what should be happenning. I just commited the
follwing:
--- extract_base.c 2001/06/08 17:39:16 1.40
+++ extract_base.c 2001/06/09 23:10:35
@@ -248,6 +248,8 @@
{_("archived"), _("'slink' - Debian 2.1 Released June 1999"),
CHOICE_SLINK },
};
+
+ problemBox(_("Boot-floppies testers: please install the 'testing'
distrubution (woody). Finding issues with installing that distribution is more
important than finding issues with sid or potato, thanks."), _("Important
Note."));
#endif
/* Sanity Check */
> The main goal for boot-floppies at the moment, btw, is much simpler
> than what you appear to be thinking: what we need right now are some
> boot-floppies in the archive accompanied by a list of do's, don't's and
> workarounds that can be used by competent testers to do woody installs.
> These only need to be available for i386, they're allowed to only work for
> one method ("You can't use these floppies for CD installs, nor for DHCP"),
> they're allowed to have special instructions that you have to carry out
> very precisely ("Switch to VC 2, type this confusing sed command... Before
> rebooting, switch to VC 2, and chmod these directories like so..."),
> all they have to do is be usable to install a functional woody system.
>
> It'd be nice to start having "released" beta boot-floppies, asap. Even
> without multiple architecture support, and whatever else.
k, With that in mind I think we should be able to release 2.3.5 on Monday
at the latest. I'm going to do some i386 installs now and see what it looks
like.
David
Reply to: