[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cvs and debian-cd

Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr> writes:

> Le Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:49:28AM +0000, Philip Charles écrivait:
> > Is cvs up to date, i.e includes the patches and modifications used for the
> > current test cycle CDs?
> Yes and no, the "funky" changes for size calculation are not in the CVS [1],
> but the new README.html.in is in. The kernel-source-2.2.15 has not been
> added to "forcd1" ... I'm not sure if it should be on CD1 (Phil is always
> taking this kind of decision alone)

Sorry about that ;-)

It was mentioned in someone else's mail to the list, and seemed like a
good plan.  I'm of the opinion that trying it in a test cycle is the
quickest way of finding out if people are going to get stressed about
whatever it is that drops off the end of the CD as a result.

I'd hope that some sort of consensus will emerge by release time, so
that the hate mail about package XYZ not being on CD#1 doesn't all come
to me.

> [however I really don't mind for this
> particular package, anyone can commit this little change]. Otherwise,
> looking at Phil's mail the other change are not important and won't alter
> the images [if you think something precise should be commited (like the
> retry stuff) please send me the patch (and not just an URL) or commit it 
> yourself if the change is not too big and if you're sure of what you're
> doing ]

No, I was mostly posting it so that if the CDs turn out to be broken,
everyone will get the chance to find my stupid mistake.  That's why I
didn't tidy the patch up, since in doing so I'd almost certainly edit
out my stupidity as something of no relevance, so that patch is
exactly what ``cvs diff -u'' produced (less the STDERR stuff).

> [1] They are far too strange and "self-tuned" to be worth commiting.

Very true --- I only mentioned them in the hope that someone who knows
more about iso9660 than I would slap their forehead and say ``Ah, Of
course, that must be the RockRidge, 354 bytes per file overhead'' or
wherever it comes from, so we could then make the size calculations
come up with the right numbers in the first place.

I do think having a limit expressed in terms of MB and calculated such
that you could say that the limit was 650MB, and be assured that you
were going to get something that fits on a CD would be a step forward
though.  The alternative caused me significant frustration, which I
wouldn't wish on anyone else.

Cheers, Phil.

Reply to: