Re: I need a working debian CD image, yesterday :)
> These dependency problems was with a standard workstation using the
> cdboot version, which I would have thought included the same binaries
> as the 2.0beta1?
Well, maybe. I was mostly interested in the bootability of that image, and
didn't put a vast amount of effort into making sure it was valid in other
respects, so it might have been duff.
> Also, I can't seem to be able to change this image.. Whenever I try to
> loopback-mount it I end up with a read/only device. Even if I
> explicitly give mount instructiong to mount it r/w (which it doesn't
> complain about). Got any ideas on this one?
I think you'll find that iso9660 file systems are inherently read-only, or
are you saying you've managed to change one before ?
> > The scripts I use to make the images, are available as debian-cd_*.deb:
>
> I've looked at these and if I was given a few days I could probably
> even get them to work ;) I've got a local mirror, mirroring from
> ftp.debian.org using fmirror. For some reason though the
> check_mirror.pl-script complains about incorrect md5sum's, som
> somethings wrong somewhere.. Might be just my mirror thats acting
> funny..
If it's working then it means that you mirror is corrupt, which is bad news.
Have you tried confirming that there is some difference between the files on
your machine and the ftp.debian.org site ?
> It might be a good idea to mention somewhere that you need cdboot.bin
> and boot.catalog to make it work (Atleast it looks like that). I have
> as yet found no reference to these files or where they can be found (I
> can find them on the CD I burnt ofcourse, but where do they come from
> originally and what are they?). Some more documentation wouldn't be so
> bad really (But I know how tiresome documentating can be..).
The latest version doesn't use them --- they were slightly tweaked versions of
the resc1440 images, but the new images already have the tweak, so we can use
them direct.
> Another thing I noticed; why is the mkisofs program included in the
> debian-cd package? It seems to be rather different then the one
> included in the hamm distribution. Wouldn't it make sense to make the
> debian-cd package work with hamm's version of mkisofs and make it
> depend on it? Or is there something fundamentally wrong with the hamm
> mkisofs? :-)
this mkisofs is:
a) static, so will work on bo and hamm systems
b) a later version, that supports joliet etc.
Once we get past the 2.0 release, and the debian package gets updated to this
version, there'll be no reason to use the one included, and I'll drop it.
> Just some ideas of mine and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this
> before :-)
No, that's great. All suggestions are gratefully accepted :-)
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: