Re: Debian 2.1r5
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2000 J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > We consider anything to be official ONLY if it is mentioned in the ChangeLog.
> > Everything else has been (very!) unreliable in the past.
> >
> > NOTE: Has the new w3-el-e20 already been installed?? (The "old"==current?
> > version was/is breaking CD creation.)
>
> NOPE, the updated w3-el-e20 was moved into 'slink-proposed-updates' so
> cd-creation is still broken. It needed to be moved into the main archive!
>
> Actually there are a number of files in slink-proposed-updates .
Actually we could call it at least 2.1r8 by now. The symlink for 2.1r5
appeared on my mirror Mar 5 and checking modify times for directories
along with actual file timestamps shows that slink has been changed at
least 3 times since then. The wording on my CD labels is 'Based on Debian
Stable Version 2.1r5' followed by the image creation date.
I have no idea what rules are being used for release engineering. They
must be radically different from the ones I learned. I would be glad to
share this wisdom with anyone who really gives a .... about such things.
In the meantime I will continue to do my best at generating CD images that
work correctly regardless of version (mis)numbering. It would be different
if I was getting complaints about installability and such. It might be
possible that the w3-el-e20 problem exists on my product for those who
choose to install that package. If that is the case installing from the
stable ftp archive would also be a problem until it is updated.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Wade Greenbush Technologies Corporation +
+ mailto:paulwade@greenbush.com http://www.greenbush.com/ +
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: