At 03:45 AM 4/10/2001 +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
>Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar
>with.
-CURRENT fits all those requirements.
> > I'm not as hot about the BETA designation, but generally feel it should
> > be left alone simply because it's documented,
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 04:09:11PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> 4.x-stable Checked out today (2001-04-09) at 13:00 UTC
>
> *
> NOTE: _ALL_ problems mentioned below disappear with BDECFLAGS removed
> from CFLAGS, thus a default build will not encounter these.
> *
Submit patches to fix
[... SNIP ...]
Personally, I don't see a problem with the -CURRENT and -STABLE naming
scheme. As someone said, anybody who can CVSup (not to mention get the
sample CVSup files to work off of) yet not read the rest of the
documentation has other issues. Renaming -CURRENT to -DEV or -DEVEL would
be
> By this designation, we could call a brake a clutch and get away with it
> because it's all documented. The problem is not with the documentation.
> It's with the name.
That's a nice pat answer, but the problem is that for every value of
"name" we propose, somebody comes forward and says "But
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christopher Schulte wrote:
> At 03:45 AM 4/10/2001 +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
> >Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar
> >with.
>
> -CURRENT fits all those requirements.
In this case, the familiarity is reduced to those familiar with the
pr
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:26:50AM -0500, Christopher Schulte wrote:
>
> Change the designation just because some admins don't know how to RTFM? I
> don't think so... They fu*ked up. Plain and simple. -CURRENT makes sense,
> and more importantly is documented for those who take the time to l
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Michael R. Rudel wrote:
> [... SNIP ...]
>
> Personally, I don't see a problem with the -CURRENT and -STABLE naming
> scheme. As someone said, anybody who can CVSup (not to mention get the
> sample CVSup files to work off of) yet not read the rest of the
> documentation has ot
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:16:51AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
> OK, since folks are comparing unusual disk layouts, here's one I've been
> using on my laptop for the last few weeks (since I got it). Now, this
> isn't something that you can tell sysinstall to do directly; more about
> that shou
Okay.
Well, FWIW, fdisk -I does *not* work successfully for me, under any
circumstances I've tried so far.
I have found a work-around, though:
TERM=cons25 # If serial console, set this to vt100
export TERM
/stand/sysinstall nonInteractive=YES partition=all bootManager=standard \
disk=${disk} di
IIRC, I've sent a email before about this, but nobody doesn't pay
attention nor fix src/release/Makefile...
In our all distribution, including 4.3-RC2, have incorrect
CHECKSUM.MD5 file in crypto/ distribution. Here is the current distribution:
% ls
4.3-RC2 RELNOTES.TXTcompat1x
Jordan,
Is the 4.3 release date still on track for April 15, per your revised
schedule as posted March 22 to this list?
I'm planning a server maintenance window for later this month, and if
possible I'd like to get some production boxes to 4.3-STABLE at the same
time. Kill two or more birds.
At 10:04 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>I like the idea of stable-supfile, so it should stay. standard-supfile
>should *definitely* refer to the -REL in which it is a part of. In that
>case, a novice user who doesn't change anything would end up cvsup'ing code
>that they already have
12 matches
Mail list logo
