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

Re: Edu wheezy release in (or before) August or September or...?!!?


(Mike see below for why I cc:ed you... :)

On Sonntag, 7. Juli 2013, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > so let's release in (or before) August or September (2013!) - or
> > what's holding us up?
> My goal is to release before August.

good :-)
> > 1.) "LTSP diskless workstation login using ldm (with sshfs) end up

fix confirmed now.

> > 2.) "we need to decide: do we want to release an i386 binary DVD and
> > amd64/i386 usbstick image plus the i386 netinst CD?"
> > 
> > IMO yes we should release these four (incl source) images. Any reason not
> > to document this in the manual now?
> I am not quite sure we need the i386 DVD.
> I published alpha3 with the amd64/i386 usbstick and amd64/i386 netinst
> CD, and did not include the i386 binary DVD, to see if anyone was
> missing it.

right. And we got no complaints, so I conclude: let's drop the i386 DVD.
> Can anyone let us know if they really need the i386 DVD and can not
> get their work done using the netinst CD or the USB stick ISO?

^^ speak up now or....
> > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Status/Wheezy also lists some other
> > known problems, but IMO nothing which should hold us off doing a
> > release. Read that (whole page) for yourself :-)
> I agree.

good :)

> As I said earlier, as soon as the gosa fix was in, we should do a
> beta1.  And I believe we should make the betas from wheezy and not
> wheezy-test.

I'm reluctant to move gosa from (our) wheezy-test to wheezy, until it has been 
uploaded to and been accepted for stable-proposed-updates. That's #713049 
which is currently somewhat stalled. Maybe Mike can comment on the bug?!
> > If the first blocker is fixed (in wheezy-test) by now, I don't see
> > anything preventing us calling the current wheezy-test images
> > "beta1" - well, maybe except for a debian-edu-install upload for
> > doing this technically :)
> Actually, I believe we can release beta1 even without the first
> blocker fixed. :)

right :)


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

Reply to: