> Can I ask one favour for in future, though - if any more changes are
> made in future to core tools like silo, mkisofs etc. that will affect
> CD/DVD image generation, can you please give us just a little bit of
> warning? At the moment, without the information about the new isofs.b
> you gave me
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:56:43PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> Thanks very much for the support, Ben. I've been working hard trying
>> to get some sparc CDs created, and I didn't think asking for some help
>> to get this job done was particularly out of order. Apparently I was
>> wrong. I hope you
> Can I ask one favour for in future, though - if any more changes are
> made in future to core tools like silo, mkisofs etc. that will affect
> CD/DVD image generation, can you please give us just a little bit of
> warning? At the moment, without the information about the new isofs.b
> you gave me
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:56:43PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> Thanks very much for the support, Ben. I've been working hard trying
>> to get some sparc CDs created, and I didn't think asking for some help
>> to get this job done was particularly out of order. Apparently I was
>> wrong. I hope you
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:57:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> A mirror is a mirror. It's getting ludicrous to expect people
>> to set up a completely separate woody-only mirror to build CDs. All
>> the other architectures work
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:57:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> A mirror is a mirror. It's getting ludicrous to expect people
>> to set up a completely separate woody-only mirror to build CDs. All
>> the other architectures work
> Some consistency of the changes might not hurt. The fact that the
> debian-cd code in both woody _and_ unstable still depends on very
> specific behaviour of old versions of silo and mkisofs is a bit of a
> problem here:
Each release the debian-cd code changes because the dist changes. That
has
> Some consistency of the changes might not hurt. The fact that the
> debian-cd code in both woody _and_ unstable still depends on very
> specific behaviour of old versions of silo and mkisofs is a bit of a
> problem here:
Each release the debian-cd code changes because the dist changes. That
has
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:51:52PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:57:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> >> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
>> >> way to test, then I'm goin
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:51:52PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:57:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> >> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
>> >> way to test, then I'm goin
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:57:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
> >> way to test, then I'm going to wait until the boot-sparc script is
> >> known to work. I'll
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:57:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
> >> way to test, then I'm going to wait until the boot-sparc script is
> >> known to work. I'll
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
>> way to test, then I'm going to wait until the boot-sparc script is
>> known to work. I'll work on the easier architectures first.
>
>I know they wont work, becau
> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
> way to test, then I'm going to wait until the boot-sparc script is
> known to work. I'll work on the easier architectures first.
I know they wont work, because isofs.b doesn't work like cd.b did, and
you used a mkisofs that
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
>> way to test, then I'm going to wait until the boot-sparc script is
>> known to work. I'll work on the easier architectures first.
>
>I know they wont work, becau
> For now I'm going to leave the sparc images as they are. If there's no
> way to test, then I'm going to wait until the boot-sparc script is
> known to work. I'll work on the easier architectures first.
I know they wont work, because isofs.b doesn't work like cd.b did, and
you used a mkisofs that
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:52:41AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> >The path to isofs.b needs to be absolute on the build machine (not
>> >relative to the CD root). The "..." is literal, it means use isofs.b to
>> >boot any sort of sparc (sun4c,sun4m,sun4d,sun4u).
>>
>> Some warning of these changes
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:52:41AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>> >The path to isofs.b needs to be absolute on the build machine (not
>> >relative to the CD root). The "..." is literal, it means use isofs.b to
>> >boot any sort of sparc (sun4c,sun4m,sun4d,sun4u).
>>
>> Some warning of these changes
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:33:56 +
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If this next attempted build fails, I'm going to abandon the sparc
> > images altogether, and recommend that woody r2 does not include sparc
> > CDs. Does anybody actua
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:50:17AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:33:56 +
>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If this next attempted build fails, I'm going to abandon the sparc
>> images altogether, and recommend that woody r2 does not include sparc
>> CDs. Doe
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:33:56 +
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this next attempted build fails, I'm going to abandon the sparc
> images altogether, and recommend that woody r2 does not include sparc
> CDs. Does anybody actually care in the SLIGHTEST about supporting
> sparc CDs?
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:33:56 +
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If this next attempted build fails, I'm going to abandon the sparc
> > images altogether, and recommend that woody r2 does not include sparc
> > CDs. Does anybody actua
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:50:17AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:33:56 +
>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If this next attempted build fails, I'm going to abandon the sparc
>> images altogether, and recommend that woody r2 does not include sparc
>> CDs. Doe
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:33:56 +
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this next attempted build fails, I'm going to abandon the sparc
> images altogether, and recommend that woody r2 does not include sparc
> CDs. Does anybody actually care in the SLIGHTEST about supporting
> sparc CDs?
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:31:26AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>
>We're late getting the r2 images created, and changes to the packages
>that we need to use don't help. The script to make sparc CDs bootable
>contains the following:
>
>silo_deb=`ls $MIRROR/pool/main/s/silo/silo_*.deb | tail -1`
>
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:31:26AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>
>We're late getting the r2 images created, and changes to the packages
>that we need to use don't help. The script to make sparc CDs bootable
>contains the following:
>
>silo_deb=`ls $MIRROR/pool/main/s/silo/silo_*.deb | tail -1`
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
