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 be expected to know what a bootable sparc image
looks like, nor does he even have a sparc to test this on.
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 here), and I could not have been
expected to download 650megs over my 33.6k modem within the few hours
timeframe that these things were created and distributed under.
I could blame...
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):
1) First of all I think the CD's themselves need a sub revision. Obviously
if we were to create a new CD image set just for sparc, we can't call
it 2.2 r0 since there wouldn't be any way to designate it from the
original broken ones. We can't call it 2.2 r1, since it really isn't,
and the dist hasn't changed, just the image. So maybe the CD's need to
be labeled like "2.2 r0 cdv0" (for CD Revision), and in this case we
could have made "2.2 r0 cdv1" for sparc to fix this.
2) Next time we create some very important images, I think one person
needs to be designated responsible for testing images prior to release.
This requires one of the following:
a) The person download them, burn them, and test an install or two.
Verify certain points (maybe a checklist...).
b) If the designated person cannot do this, they can opt to pay for
images to be shipped to them (Phil, is this too much to ask a
volunteer? :), then test them.
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 them available.
3) After each arch is tested, that arch is released, independent of the
other archs. That way we don't slow up everyone else because of slow
testers.
4) From here, things should be handled a lot better AFA mirroring (before
being made world readable to the public), but I'll leave that to the
debian-cd folks to decide how to make that better.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
