Re: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:

> WTF is the difference? Nothing but a naming scheme. It's still a change,
> either way you do it, why do you want to nitpick the mechanism?

Personally, I'd favour doing something that makes it as clear as
possible that it was a CD production SNAFU, and that hence the sparc
images are exactly the same revision as all the other ones, just that
we had to have two (or in fact three, but we'll forget about that)
runs at making the images.

The FTP archive is not being updated by one jot in between the CD
build runs, so when I make another set of sparc (and perhaps alpha)
they will still be CDs of Debian 2.2 rev0, not rev0.1, not rev0.5, not
rev1.

On that basis, I'll call the directory on cdimage.d.o:

  2.2_rev0_cdrev1

I'm not certain what I'll put on the CDs themselves, because I need to
check the size issues, but if it will fit, I'll go for something like:

  2.2 r0 CDr1
  2.2 r0 (1)
  2.2 r0.1

and if it's likely to cause the slightest problem, I'll not bother
changing the version at all on the CD.

All right?  (I'm not overly bothered if that's not all right, given that
there's probably not time to discuss it further before I do it).

Cheers, Phil.