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

Re: Official CD

[ sent also to -devel because people should know I was mistaken ]

On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 04:24:07PM +0000, CheapBytes Information wrote:
> I just had the opportunity to review your post regarding Debian Official
> CD screwups where you mentioned a few different companies.

I am terribly sorry, I did not realize the CheapBytes CDs were not labelled
"official", but I did know that the upgrade process did not work properly
using the autoup.sh script and the install process wasn't as clean as with
the official images.  Anyone who has dealt with the Debian or even linux in
general would have figured it out, but a new user would be frustrated

It is my hope that it will become easier for vendors to use official images
or at least be able to generate the same with possible additions they might
wish to make (blurbs or additional tips and the like especially..) I'm
quietly pushing for either a test script or an image build script which
would allow things to be added by vendors.  Of course, both would be good,
and the results should be considered official.  My original suggestion did
not state my preference for this because it was merely something to get the
ball rolling.  I didn't want to name any vendors at all, but I realized if I
didn't include examples people were less likely to see the need in
discussing it.

We already knew that the need for autoup.sh should have been nonexistant and
we do intend to make sure that in the future upgrades are more transparent,
probably at most requiring update of the package manager first.  In this way
it will be less traumatic for our users and our vendors.  

> Your message is interesting.  Yes, we have produced several Debian CDs.

I've purchased a number of CDs from CheapBytes as a matter of fact.  I've
not been disappointed with any CD I have received from you either.  I didn't
purchase a hamm release CD from anyone because I was already using slink,
though I have wanted to have a hamm CD around "just in case".

> However, the only one that was labled Official was 1.3.1 derived from
> the Official Images available around July of last year.  Everything
> else that has been offered has not been called Official on the title.

I had seen Official on your site and had believed I saw it next to 2.0, when
I looked after reading this email the word was not used---again I apologize
for any harm my comments may have caused your company.  

> I am unsure of how you came to the conclusion that you posted in the
> newsgroup.  It concerns us greatly that we take great pains to label
> only products that were derived from the Official images as Official
> and yet there seems to be confusion.  Can you please supply us with
> any information that led to you post so we can avoid any future
> confusion?

It concerns me greatly that you read my message on a newsgroup.  I did not
realize -devel was gated.  I do not generally like having my address out in
forums useful primarily to address harvesters without suficient mangling.

Primarily the confusion created was my fault for not double-checking myself
before I posted a message.  Once again I'm really sorry about that and am
sending this message to -devel in the hopes of undoing any harm my first
message might have caused.

It would be easy to tell myself that if you were using the official image
this would not be a problem, but there are valid reasons you might choose
not to use official images from cdimage.debian.org and those reasons are
among those behind the original message.  That and I would rather not hear
about any more troubles with CDs and upgrades and files missing or in the
wrong place.

Thank you for trying to understand the nature of the problem rather than
taking a stance similar to that which some vendors might have in response to
my message.  I am just one developer after all and as just one my opinions
do not necessarily represent those of Debian as a whole.  Standard
disclaimer (ie, "yeah I got your disclaimer right here pal!") applies.  =>

Attachment: pgpGGHgWXwMa4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: