Re: successful installation with 2.3.5 boot-floppies
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:04:49PM -0600, Matt Kraai wrote:
> 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?
No, if you're reading that, who-ever wrote it is wrong.
What we do is build using sid packages, as you say, until base
freezes, and we let the testers choose which distro (stable, testing,
unstable) they want to install.
With regards to telling the testers what to do, I feel that's the
responsibility of the testing coordinator (is Dale Scheetz the
If there is no testing coordinator, then that is going to be a problem
that someone shoudl do something about.
> 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
AFAIK, unless I hear otherwise from testers, we are at that point the
second that 2.3.5 is moved from incoming into woody (or sid I guess).
> These only need to be available for i386,
They are there for i386 and powerpc at least. BenC said he'd build
sparc shortly. m68k might have to wait for 2.3.6, they seem to have a
> they're allowed to only work for
> one method ("You can't use these floppies for CD installs, nor for
Not many such limitations but I don't have any woody CDs yet to test
> 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.
Yah -- the bad bug still outstanding is the busybox tar problem, which
is causing a *VERY* insecure system to be produced.
> It'd be nice to start having "released" beta boot-floppies, asap. Even
> without multiple architecture support, and whatever else.
We've had "released" versions since Sun, 8 Apr 2001 03:59:31 -0400.
They just weren't working very well.
Anthony, I sense some impatience and/or hostility here. What is it
we can do to make you more happy?
I'm trying to release the code more quickly -- 6 uploads since early
april. We are averaging about 10 days between releases.... Do you
have some expectations beyond taht which are not being met?
I could always use more qualified hackers of course....
Personally I would put a little concern in about the coordination of
the testing effort. Is that in place? I have no idea, maybe...
.....Adam Di Carlo....email@example.com.....<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>