Re: Stable 126.96.36.199 images broken?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:32:49AM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>I don't think so. I downloaded the DVD image via jigdo and I had the
>older one downloaded through jigdo as well .
>The only difference between this image and the last image is of 314
>files (amd64 arch) . If it was wheezy, I would assume that the
>difference between files would have been much larger. I am not sure
>though why its 314 files, they said 150/160 odd packages being
>changed. I do know that sometimes some meta-package may have 3
>individual packages, some binary, some binary-common and some
>binary-data, maybe that's the change. Also maybe the changes they had
>said may just be in main and not of other archives (contrib and
>non-free) where the package change policies may be more relaxing.
The number (150/160) will be the number of source packages
updated. The number you're seeing and reporting will be the number of
binary packages. By my count, across all architectures and source
there were 8109 updated files in the pool. That's counting the files
in the diff that I use for generating the update CDs/DVDs.
>One has to keep in mind, that this has made sure that the weekly
>images aren't there on time. See for instance
>The last image is still reflecting the one done on 20th June ,
Correct. When I'm working on a (point) release, I disable the daily
and weekly builds so as not to cause confusion or congestion on the
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
Mature Sporty Personal
More Innovation More Adult
A Man in Dandism
Powered Midship Specialty