On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 07:57:22AM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote: > we don't need real developing in b-f. B-f should only a fall back for > sarge, if d-i is not ready.
I suppose it was a while ago now, but it's still a bit sad that people are forgetting this is _exactly_ what we were saying for woody. b-f's as a fallback doesn't work, it's too thorougly unmaintainable. Or installation system needs _major_ work, easy solutions like "just fall back to boot-floppies" *don't* work. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
msg21034/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
