Re: Burning a .raw file...
> > I like the fact that .iso extension is used for the released images, and
> > only the released images, on the master site.
> > Of course, that point is moot when the images cease to exist on the
> > master site, and are only present as jigdos that generate .iso files,
> > but the fact that the files under potato-test are not .iso files
> > hopefully acts as a "I don't think we're in Kansas any more" hint to
> > people that should be in the versioned directory
> That's kinda silly. By that reasoning shouldn't we give the .deb's in
> testing a .raw extension? I don't think it occurs to many (any?) people
> that the reason for the .raw extension is that the .iso hasn't been
> released yet; instead, people just think .raw is a nutty convention.
I agree with you. Maybe it would be clearer:
Gunnar Wolf - email@example.com - (+52-55)5623-1118
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com