On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
It's almost impossible to remember all the little things that might go
wrong as well, so encapsulating that knowledge in a regression test
suit is definitely the way to go.
In which vein, it might be helpful to have test machines
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:43:48PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
Oh please!! Unlike some people like you to believe, there exist no revisions
other than CD revisions. There are no FTP revisions. FTP changes _much_ more
than the CDs due to many security fixes.
Huh?
Security fixes go in
I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
since almost none of the boot1 files are on the image.
Now I could blame this on Phil, who created the images, but that wouldn't
be right, since he can't
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:31:04AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
Well, you get the point. I don't want to place blame. I just don't want to
see this shit happen again. Here's what I want to see next time (2.2 r1):
Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
doesn't crash
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I could blame myself, but the fact is the image was not created right (it
needs to be done as either root, or under fakeroot, which requires the
*entire* process be done in a single session, not multiple fakeroot
incantations, which might be the cause
Hi,
a side note, but I think an important one.
Ben Collins wrote:
We have to remember, vendors are burning these CD's almost as soon as
we make them available. WE are costing them money when we fuck up, and
it isn't thre fault because they expect these things to work when we
make
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
doesn't crash all the time. That's the main reason we didn't have any
time at all to check things, or for Phil to double check things with you
as to how things should be done
: Donnerstag, 17. August 2000 17:11
An: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
doesn't
: Donnerstag, 17. August 2000 17:36
An: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Betreff: WG: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
Not for me
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Annette Schweigardt
AOK BD Heidenheim
Gesundheitszentrum
Daimlerstraße 6
89518
: Donnerstag, 17. August 2000 17:41
An: debian-cd@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Betreff: WG: Broken bootable SPARC CD#1, and why this happened
Not for me...
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Annette Schweigardt
AOK BD Heidenheim
Gesundheitszentrum
Daimlerstraße 6
89518
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not for me...
Life is nice isn't it?
(And then stop sending this Not for me-answers all the time or
something bad could happend)
--
Peter
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, one thing that'd help would be having a cdimage.debian.org that
doesn't crash all the time. That's the main reason we didn't have any
time at all to check things, or for Phil
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
since almost none of the boot1 files are on the image.
I'd hardly call this completely broken. I guess you
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 07:43:48PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
I've gotten reports that the ISO for CD#1 on sparc is completely broken.
Although the packages and dist files are there, the CD will not boot,
since almost none of the boot1 files are
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WTF is the difference? Nothing but a naming scheme. It's still a change,
either way you do it, why do you want to nitpick the mechanism?
Personally, I'd favour doing something that makes it as clear as
possible that it was a CD production SNAFU, and that
On 17 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WTF is the difference? Nothing but a naming scheme. It's still a change,
either way you do it, why do you want to nitpick the mechanism?
Personally, I'd favour doing something that makes it as clear as
possible
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not for me...
Life is nice isn't it?
(And then stop sending this Not for me-answers all the time or
something bad could happend)
I would guess thats a mial loop, like an away message.
MfG
Goswin
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:39:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not for me...
Life is nice isn't it?
(And then stop sending this Not for me-answers all the time or
something bad could happend)
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
