Re: Slink Readiness?
stevem@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
> Adam Di Carlo writes:
>>
>> Assuming the CD team is ready, I think the boot-floppies team is good
>> with 2.1.7 (due out today but I think it slipped). The system looks
>> quite stable from my perspective, and looks like a higher quality than
>> hamm.
>
> The CD scripts are good to go, just about. I've mad two tiny changes
> today, but nothing earth-shattering. dpkg-multicd needs a new version with
> the patch applied. All looks good, almost.
>
> BUT
>
> What are we doing in terms of architecture releases? The boot stuff for
> non-i386 is far from complete...
>
>> Brian, do you know of anyone working on a set of Release Notes as in
>> "what's new in slink?" I've CC'd Bob Hilliard.
>
> The release notes he's written will be installed on the root of each CD by
> slink_cd v 1.06...
That was my original intent. However, a few i386 centric issues
have changed my mind. I now think it will be better if each
architecture had its own Release-Notes. They could be my notes with
appropriate changes where needed, a completely separate document, or
somewhere in between.
To reduce confusion, I have added arch. and version suffixes to
the Release-Notes file name. The suffix should remain in the ftp
archives, but should be removed on the CD.
Release-Notes_i386-0.6 are now available on master on
~hilliard/upgrade-i386 and at www,debian,org/~hilliard.
> Chris Lawrence <quango@watervalley.net> wrote:
> > grep i386 Release-Notes | wc -l
> 3
>
> Perhaps your release notes are more i386-centric than you think ;-)
>
> In all seriousness, a few minor things:
>
> 1. upgrade-ARCH doesn't exist for ARCH in [m68k, alpha], since they
> never had pre-2.0 releases (and alpha didn't have a 2.0 release; I
> guess this means the release notes really don't apply on alpha).
>
> 2. Changing all references to (binary|disks|upgrade)-i386 to -ARCH and
> saying for people to use their architecture instead of ARCH where
> they see it would be nice.
This message helped change my mind about having the same
Release-Notes for all architectures. Of the three references to
(binary|disks|upgrade)-i386, only one could profit by using the ARCH
substitution.
1. "read /upgrade-i386/README-upgrade" There is no
upgrade-[alpha,sparc,m68k].
2. "There is a beginner's tutorial for dselect in the directory
debian/dists/stable/main/disks-i386/current" There is no dselect
tutorial in any other disks-ARCH.
3. To install apt, do, as root:
dpkg -i <cd_mount_point>/debian/dists/slink/main/binary-i386/admin/apt*.deb
This would work with the ARCH substituion.
It seems the cleanest solution is a sepoatare Release-Notes file
for each architecture.
I have included Christian Meder's <meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de>
"bragging bait" about sparc's use of glibc2.1. Is this unique, opr do
some of the other ports use glibc2.1?
Drake Diedrich <Drake.Diedrich@anu.edu.au> has reported that
dpkg-http may require that libhtml-parser-perl and, perhaps,
libww-perl be installed manually before upgrading to slink. I am a
waiting confirmation of this, and which systems will be affected.
Release-Notes now includes:
> The other changes from hamm to slink are incremental and
> evolutionary, not revolutionary. The total number of packages in the
> distribution has increased greatly, so that two CDs are necessary to
> accomodate the binary packages. This has necessitated upgrading the
> installation tools to deal with multiple CDs.
Is this statement about installation tools and multiple CDs
correct?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <hilliard@flinet.com>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Reply to: