Re: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
On 17 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> 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).
Okay; I think r0.1 will be the only thing fitting nicely in the disklabel (32
bytes), as powerpc-sparc=2 ;-)
(And then hope that powerpc doesn't need a second set...)
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
Reply to: