Hi, I just wanted "to add my mustard" (=denglish, =german english) to make this FD update discussion a little
useful for end users (for improved files) by adding the "to-do-list" and "plans for the future" that I found at the
FD base section while working on help 1.1.0 (will surely not be
Hi,
> On May 16, 2022, at 7:24 PM, Louis Santillan wrote:
>
> Any thoughts about the ability to build (more than kernel, FreeCOM, ISO) from
> source?
>
The release build process does not compile individual programs. It pulls
pre-compiled versions staged in package format from the Official
Any thoughts about the ability to build (more than kernel, FreeCOM, ISO)
from source?
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:11 AM Jerome Shidel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based on the discussion during the online get-together and the tool-chain
> and release processes used to maintain packages and deploy release
Hi,
Based on the discussion during the online get-together and the tool-chain and
release processes used to maintain packages and deploy release media, this is
what I’m thinking…
The pipeline used to assemble all the different aspects into a release is very
capable. It can handle multiple OS
Hello Jim,
My own thoughts:
On Sun, 15 May 2022 at 21:56, Jim Hall wrote:
> I'm interested in a parallel test distribution that gets updated on a
> regular schedule, by an automated (or mostly-automated) process. Let's
> say there's a new test distribution once a month. Each test
>
Looking ahead to "FreeDOS Next," I wanted to continue the conversation
again about test releases for FreeDOS. Before, I called this idea a
"rolling release" - but that's not the right term. So that might be
why the last conversation on this topic didn't go anywhere.
*Where we are now:
We use a
