Re: missing?
"J.A. Bezemer" <costar@panic.et.tudelft.nl> writes:
> On Tue, 30 May 2000, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 08:42:43AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > > I meant to say that m68k bin-2 and -3 weren't quite useful without bin-1.
> > > I suspect Phil removed ppc too because it, eh, "didn't meet quality
> > > standards".
> >
> > I'd like to know who decides to remove a releasing architecture from CD
> > builds...
>
> Phil Hands <phil@hands.com> does. He has made them, and they are on "his"
> machine (open.hands.com). Don't complain here, please.
I was only trying to save people the frustration of downloading a vast
file only to find that they'd just wasted their time & money because
it didn't fit on a normal CD.
Please don't try to read some sort of "anti-non-intel conspiracy"
thing into this.
Also, please don't assume that just because the test-cycle-1 CDs were
a failure for a particular architecture, that that architecture will
not get a 2.2 release at the end of the day. That's why we're doing
the test runs after all.
If people have the time to build & test their own m68k & powerpc CDs,
and report their findings, I'm sure that will be at least as useful as
people downloading & testing the ones from cdimage.d.o, so please go
ahead.
Cheers, Phil.
Reply to: