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

Re: Burning a .raw file...

On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 17:23, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > 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?

If doing so for a subdirectory tree in parallel to the pool would save
90% of mirroring time, then yes we should.  It wouldn't though, so that
would be silly.

For the master site, the .raw files are purely an artifact of the way
rsync -H works, and are not really for public consumption, so what they
are called is largely irrelevant.

If you are arguing that debian-cd should produce .iso files, rather than
.raw files, perhaps you're right.  I'll probably continue to follow the
convention established with the potato-test or woody-test directory
containing .raw files, as a hint that they are probably not what the
public are looking for, but as I said, that shouldn't concern anyone
that's not running a mirror.

Cheers, Phil.
Say no to software patents!  http://petition.eurolinux.org/

|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: