Re: Please test this woody cd image
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:31:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:39:36PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> I have installed many SCSI systems (including the one that I'm using right
> now) with potato CD #1, which I assume has a similar configuration.
Potato CD#1 used the vanilla flavour, Woody CD#1 was going to use the
idepci flavour (which doesn't have SCSI support), since Raphael's primary
language isn't English and the vanilla flavour doesn't support language
chooser. Now we could argue back and forth about this until May trying
to convince each other, but that'd be a waste of everyone's time and
quite annoying to all involved.
Doing the isolinux thing gets rid of this problem for us, and makes CD#1
much more flexible and intuitive to installers, and there're good reasons
to expect it to work well. There's not enough time to test it well (and,
tbh, woody hasn't been tested anywhere near as well as it should've been
in _any_ respects) but even if it *doesn't* work everywhere it's expected
to, that's not a huge loss, since we'll still have CD#2-4 bootable with
each individual image, and floppy images will also be available.
This seems to be a very good choice.
Additionally, it's very easy to test: find random systems, reboot them
with the small CD Raphael's prepared and check you can get into the
installer. You don't need to go all the way through the install, nor
worry about damaging your system at all -- as soon as you get to the
pretty installer screens, you're done.
Seriously: everyone reading this mail, burn a copy of Raphael's test image
on a CD and try booting it in any computers you have handy. If it doesn't
work on a machine where a potato CD does boot, please mail the lists!
> I absolutely agree that a choice on CD 1 would be superior, especially since
> it would make it possible to have the choice of a 2.4 kernel while only
> using one CD. But I think it would be even better to make a high-quality
> release release according to aj's tentative schedule, rather than a
> minimally-tested release (possibly much) later.
Worst case, if people do find a bunch of systems where this doesn't work,
we revert the change. There's no reason that should delay anything.
Cheers,
aj, who has no idea why this is on -boot and -devel but not -cd
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: