On 19 Jun 2001, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Philip Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > exim, ae are OK then. I will wait for gcc-3.0 > > It would be good to avoid e2fsprogs 1.20-2 which is currently in the > archive. With it you have to answer yes for every disk when booting. > > We're still waiting on the resolve of a small compile problem. The > maintainers are generally quite quick, but I can also upload a patched > version if needs be. > > FWIW, if hurd-i386 were included in the "testing" mechanism, could you > easily produce CDs from testing? This would prevent problems like > e2fsprog's.
The images are produced from a separate Hurd sub-archive and manual intervention is possible after this has be created. This means that a more functional e2fsprogs could be substituted at this stage. Which should I use? It would be relatively easy to move the generation of the sub-archive from unstable to testing. However, would new Hurd packages make it into testing as quickly as unstable? Phil. - Philip Charles; 39a Paterson St., Dunedin, New Zealand; +64 3 4882818 Mobile 025 267 9420. I sell GNU/Linux CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
