On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote:
> have debian addressed the alleged file corruption (ext2) issue that
> i heard was present in 2.4.X uptil 2.4.3 ?
Well, given that that seems to be what's been causing cdimage.debian.org
grief recently (I stupidly upgraded to 2.4.3
Raph,
"si j'aurais su j'aurais pas venu" :-)...
Il y a donc un script qui indique tout l'arbre a prendre, et qui genere une image ISO
bootable...
Super...Je vais exploiter cette methode plutot que d'attendre la dispo chez les
miroirs.
Je serais de toute facons accrediter a fournir la debian,
So sprach Laurent LEVIER am Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:45:24AM +0200:
> Raph,
>
> "si j'aurais su j'aurais pas venu" :-)...
>
> Il y a donc un script qui indique tout l'arbre a prendre, et qui genere une image
>ISO bootable...
>
> Super...Je vais exploiter cette methode plutot que d'attendre la d
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:00:33AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Laurent LEVIER écrivait:
> > Ok, so for guys waiting for ISO images, it would be great to have a
> > simple script to create them.
>
> How what a good idea !! It's called debian-cd. :) How
Previously Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2.
>
> You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
Considering he said `in release
Le Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Laurent LEVIER écrivait:
> Ok, so for guys waiting for ISO images, it would be great to have a
> simple script to create them.
How what a good idea !! It's called debian-cd. :) However when you build
the CDs yourself you're not providing official debian C
So sprach Laurent LEVIER am Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 08:02:27PM +0200:
> Gentlemen,
>
> You should really consider being more opened for Debian downloads...
>
> The 2.2rev3 is not available on ANY of the listed sites, whatever the format is.
Uh? The ISO images aren't available, that's for sure. B
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:15:03AM +1000, jason andrade wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
> You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
it looks
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> BTW open.hands.com (a.k.a. cdimage.d.o, www.uk.d.o etc.) died rather
> more effectively than expected, and is no longer getting past the LILO
> "Loading Linux" bit. I should be able to sort this out before the
> end of today (G
Ok, so for guys waiting for ISO images, it would be great to have a simple script to
create them.
I mean a script that provides the list of files/trees, and the (I guess) mkisofs
command with appropriate parameters and associated files to build automagically the
ISO image.
This way, at the mo
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2. All others are
> either junk and pretty unstable or useless (at least IMHO).
> So, I've never really seen any use
12 matches
Mail list logo
