Re: Debian 2.1r5
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 paulwade@greenbush.com wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 paulwade@greenbush.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23-Mar-2000 J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > We consider anything to be official ONLY if it is mentioned in the ChangeLog.
> > > > > Everything else has been (very!) unreliable in the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > NOTE: Has the new w3-el-e20 already been installed?? (The "old"==current?
> > > > > version was/is breaking CD creation.)
> > > >
> > > > NOPE, the updated w3-el-e20 was moved into 'slink-proposed-updates' so
> > > > cd-creation is still broken. It needed to be moved into the main archive!
> > > >
> > > > Actually there are a number of files in slink-proposed-updates .
> > >
> > > Actually we could call it at least 2.1r8 by now. The symlink for 2.1r5
> > > appeared on my mirror Mar 5 and checking modify times for directories
> > > along with actual file timestamps shows that slink has been changed at
> > > least 3 times since then. The wording on my CD labels is 'Based on Debian
> > > Stable Version 2.1r5' followed by the image creation date.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what rules are being used for release engineering. They
> > > must be radically different from the ones I learned. I would be glad to
> > > share this wisdom with anyone who really gives a .... about such things.
> > >
> > > In the meantime I will continue to do my best at generating CD images that
> > > work correctly regardless of version (mis)numbering. It would be different
> > > if I was getting complaints about installability and such. It might be
> > > possible that the w3-el-e20 problem exists on my product for those who
> > > choose to install that package. If that is the case installing from the
> > > stable ftp archive would also be a problem until it is updated.
> > >
> > Anyone who tries to use any of the preselected systems will run into
> > problems with their installation with 2.1r5(6,7,8)
>
> So this means that we need to move a package from proposed updates to
> slink? I can do that on my mirror before generating slink images. Give me
> a few more workarounds so I can change my labels to 'Loosely based on
> Debian stable slink 2.1r?' :)
Can be done by modifying the Packages files. Tedious and error prone if
done by hand.
It would be far more elegant if the people concerned replaced w3-el with
the version in proposed-updates.
Phil.
-
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson St., Abbotsford, New Zealand; +64 3 4882818
Mobile 025 267 9420. I sell GNU/Linux CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
Reply to: