Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Case in point: the current boot-floppies hassle. Let's rehash this once > again in more detail. > I wasted some time attempting to build new boot-floppies from the source > (the new slink source got uploaded to Incoming only days before the > release deadline IIRC).
I apologize for that, but I would point out that we provide the CVS area for a reason. No code is every uploaded without it being in CVS -- in this case, as the slink branch. You know this very well. So the argument that you didn't have the source available isn't really true. I gave warning ont he boot-floppies list prior to building the i386 version as well. > Didn't work on a potato machine (no big surprise, but I bet it > wouldn't have worked without changes even on slink). I don't know that this is a fair assumption. I am pretty sure I didn't break anything for m68k in the minor updates I did for 2.1r4 boot-floppies. So if it was broken, then it must have been broken in the boot-floppies source prior to 2.1r4. I don't know what I can do about the inconsistent involvement of porters in boot-floppies. Many porters make changes but don't bother to commit the changes to CVS or even send me patches. I've begged and pleaded for porters to help me support other architectures better -- in a lot of cases, this process is working. In cases where it's not working, please tell me what I can do to improve it, if anything. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
