Here's a comment I tried to post at slashdot, but slashdot is a bit broken, so I'll mention it here before people get overexcited:
I seem to have caused a little confusion here. I needed to create some new CD images, because enough new bug fixes had hit the archive to make it worthwhile, and if I do that I have to differentiate the versions somehow: hence a directory name of 2.0beta1 for the first lot, and 2.0beta2 for the second. Of course, as soon as I did the 2.0beta2 CD images, I was told how to fix a booting problem we've been having with the CD's so there was a good reason to instantly go to version 2.0beta3 of the CD's. This should not be taken to mean there's anything radically different between the 2.0beta2 and 2.0beta3 CD images (the only difference is the order in which the files are put into the CD image) That said, it seems reasonable to say that Debian 2.0 is into it's second phase of testing. It's just that there wasn't an ``official'' delineation between 2.0beta and 2.0beta2 (except by me choosing a particular moment to freeze my mirror) I'm not sure how useful it is to worry about the beta versions of the distribution, but of course it must be done for the CD images, so that we know to which versions any bug reports apply. Just one more thing. If anyone has burnt CDs using 2.0beta2 images, don't bother worrying about what is different with 2.0beta3 --- the answer is nothing, except the file order, which was only done to improve the bootability of the images on machines with certain BIOS's I hope that's a little clearer. Cheers, Phil. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
