Re: 2.1_r3 images
Kaz Sasayama <Kaz.Sasayama@hypercore.co.jp> writes:
> >>>>> On 16 Sep 1999 18:33:53 +0100, Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> PH> Unsatisfied dependencies, so I cannot make the CDs.
> PH> trn on one, sendmail on another, and I forget the reason for the third
> PH> (look through the relevant debian-<arch> archives for an annoyed
> PH> message from me).
> Thank you. So 2.1_r2 is still latest for alpha/m68k/sparc,
> isn't it?
> Then, should I keep 2.1_r2 source images for a while?
Well, if you like, but AFAIK there's nothing wrong with the source for
the packages in question, so people might be happier with later
source, since that way, they could upgrade the packages in question by
compiling them themselves, which would result in the correct