Re: Please test this woody cd image
Matt Zimmerman wrote on Wed Apr 10, 2002 um 04:45:08PM:
> > Why not? Weeks != days.
> 10 days != long enough to test a completely different _primary_ way of
> booting the installation system.
a) isolinux is not completely new. It is syslinux, extended with ability
of reading iso9660. Show me one failure (caused not by general
problems, i.e. with some laptops not beeing able to boot _any_
mkisofs-made cdrom) and I will shut up.
b) You can insert another CD and boot, if you got problems. I am sure
most people will do anyways.
> > Why not use _exactly_ this on the first CD, and pure idepci on 5th CD (for
> > the few cases where isolinux may break though I have _never_ heard about
> > problems with isolinux).
> Sure, once it has been proven to work _for Debian_ on a wide variety of
> systems. It would have been a great idea a couple of months ago. Why did
> you wait until there was so much pressure to finish the release?
a) I waited for bf2.4 to get enough testing
b) I do not like idepci, which other people want to make default
> > And sorry, IMHO is idepci the worst kernel-image to be used for CD#1 as
> > the only available flavor.
> It seems to work for a large number of users, and that is its only job, is
> it not?
I do not like kernels that cannot be used for anything but installation,
and even then not for installation on modern hardware. It is called
idepci but it does not support recent IDE hardware.
"I think Debian's doing something wrong, `apt-get install pesticide', doesn't
seem to remove the bugs on my system!"
-- Mike Dresser
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org