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

Re: three different sets of daily ISOs -- what's the difference?

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:02:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Sunday 11 July 2004 10:34, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > There are three (seemingly) different sets of daily ISOs at
> >
> > http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/daily/powerpc/20040710/
> >
> > http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sarge_d-
> > i/powerpc/20040710/
> >
> > http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sid_d-i/powerpc/20040710/
> >
> > Can anybody explain what the difference is?  And which one should I
> > use for testing?
> Hi Rick,
> Note: this is a general answer; it could be things are different for PPC.


> The daily and sarge_d-i images are identical.
> Currently, your best option for testing is sid_d-i. This is the version that 
> includes the most recent changes (e.g. the new netcfg and languagechooser).
> During an IRC meeting last week, it was decided that TC1 will be abandoned and 
> the next testing and release candidates will be based on sid_d-i.

There are two image sers, sarge_d-i, which is built with sarge .udebs,
and sid_d-i, which is built with sid .udebs. In truth these are two
separate sets of .udebs, since moving between them i done manually, and
not with the testing scripts like the rest of the .debs.

sarge_d-i thus held the beta, and lately the tc1, while sid_d-i held the
developement tree.

Since tc1 is now being abandoned in favor of doing a new snapshot of
what is currently in unstable, that is sid_d-i, the daily builds have
been moved from pointing to sarge_d-i to pointing to sid_d-i a few days

Furthermore, the cdrom d-i install only the sarge set of .debs, but with
the netboot ones, you get a choice of installing either the sarge or sid
.debs (or woody, but that is probably irremediably broken right now).

I never tested, but maybe the business card isos, since they hold all
the .udebs, allow also to chose between sid and sarge.


Sven Luther

Reply to: