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

Re: DATOM cds.. and 2.0rX

On Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 12:16:52PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm replying as one of `datom / schlitterman'.

	Thought you would :)
> On Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 03:18:51AM +0200, Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
> : 
> : 	I don't want to start a flame war here or start discussing *again*
> [ Please answer the first question (as you didn't want to start a      ]
> [ flame war): If you see a problem, why didn't you wrote a personal    ]
> [ mail to us?                                                          ]

	Well, I didn't mean start a flame war with you (DATOM), I meant
starting again the discussion on the name which should be given to the
release of Debian including stable-updates and fixing bugs (for example
cd_autoup.sh) which lead to *a lot* of discussion on the list.
I have no problem with DATOM, I have only heard good things
of it (see my apologies below). Sorry for the confusion, these didn't intend
to be an attack to your company.

> Yes, we're listed as vendor of the official CD.  And we don't sell the
> official CD.  Thats's right.  [ As it seems, the statement about not
> selling the `official' image got lost, we'll make this more clear.  On
> the other side it should be clear that this can't be the official
> version since non-free/non-US aren't part of the official images, aren't
> they? ]

	You are right.

>     * We don't sell the official Debian images.  
> An explanation like this will be added to our webpages.
> : 2.0rX. Currently they say they ditribute 2.0r2! Now, Phil has just made a
> : beta image for 2.0r1 and THAT might lead to some confussion.
> I think, nobody said that 2.0rX are names for the CDs.  This are names
> for the current state of the Debian archive.  And currently the archives
> are at 2.0.r2, we mirror this and create our CDs with this release.

	If this is so you made a point and I was mistaken. Sorry.
> : Please tell DATOM either to rename their CDs (maybe 2.0Dr2? =Datom
> : release) or stop saying they are official. Since they are not using the
> : official images, and their layout (has been mentioned here before) is not
> : the same in cdimage.debian.org
> What are the difference in the layout?  Do you have one of our CDs?

	I have to apologize for this, since I must have had my mind frozen
during the night (I sent this mail way over midnight :) I don't know how but
I attributed the defective layour to DATOM, but it is Cheapbytes who gives
problems. Please accept my excuses.

> : Please tell DATOM either to rename their CDs (maybe 2.0Dr2? =Datom
> : release) or stop saying they are official. Since they are not using the
> Yes, as said above, we'll make this clear on our web pages.
>     Best Regards from Dresden/Germany
>     Viele Gruesse aus Dresden
> 	Heiko Schlittermann
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

	The point I wanted to make is that saying "2.0r2" is out, as stated
in the web pages, seems to crush against the idea of having official CD
Images, named (as it seems they will be) 2.0rX. Maybe it would be better to
state that a CD has been made of the archive (current version 2.0r2), and
*not* name the CD 2.0r2.

	Anyhow, my apologies since on reading the later e-mail it seems I
was attacking DATOM, which is rather not what I pretended.

	Best Regards form Madrid/Spain


Reply to: