On 25 Jul 2002, Philip Hands wrote: > OK, so we've had positive reports for i386 & ia64, and no negative > reports so far. > > Should I just assume that all the DVDs that I succeed in building (which > is still missing a few) are OK, and sign them, or do people think we > should wait for success reports independently for each arch? > > BTW Lance, you've grabbed these, haven't you --- have you tried testing > the DVDs you're planning on burning? I wouldn't want to sign of the > source DVDs only to find they're broken in some way.
I grabbed i386 and source, at the moment I'm producing a dlt tape that I'll send to the pressing plant, then wait to hear from them that its ok to use. Trouble is they use a proprietary format produced by dvd mastering software, I said all they needed was an old 486 with a big hard disk running Debian - I'd send them a dlt containing the iso and all they had to do was run tar -xvf /dev/nst0 , but they remained unconvinced. Still the cost is going against their R&D budget ... If that fails I'm getting a dvd-r machine tomorrow and will send them 2 x dvd-r which should work. > I know you noticed the sarge...Sources thing, but that file's different > from the Woody one in only a few apparently irrelevant lines, so I > wouldn't think it was worth re-doing the images for that, but I'd like > to hear that the disk comes out readable before you get thousands of the > things pressed. So would I !! I think we'll get a test prssing of 10 disks done first ... Lance -- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
