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 that it was a CD production SNAFU, and that hence the sparc > images are exactly the same revision as all the other ones, just that > we had to have two (or in fact three, but we'll forget about that) > runs at making the images. > > The FTP archive is not being updated by one jot in between the CD > build runs, so when I make another set of sparc (and perhaps alpha) > they will still be CDs of Debian 2.2 rev0, not rev0.1, not rev0.5, not > rev1. > > On that basis, I'll call the directory on cdimage.d.o: > > 2.2_rev0_cdrev1 > > I'm not certain what I'll put on the CDs themselves, because I need to > check the size issues, but if it will fit, I'll go for something like: > > 2.2 r0 CDr1 > 2.2 r0 (1) > 2.2 r0.1 > > and if it's likely to cause the slightest problem, I'll not bother > changing the version at all on the CD. > > All right? (I'm not overly bothered if that's not all right, given that > there's probably not time to discuss it further before I do it).
Okay; I think r0.1 will be the only thing fitting nicely in the disklabel (32 bytes), as powerpc-sparc=2 ;-) (And then hope that powerpc doesn't need a second set...) Regards, Anne Bezemer
