Am 10.06.2013 14:13, schrieb Shivam Pandya:
> Hello sir/ Ma'm
>
> I'm Shivam Pandya, and study in my last year, I want to develop a OS
> in my final year project, I found debian from wiki, Can you help me
> out from this. can you please guide me that how could I develop (re
> distr
Hello sir/ Ma'm
I'm Shivam Pandya, and study in my last year, I want to develop a OS in my
final year project, I found debian from wiki, Can you help me out from
this. can you please guide me that how could I develop (re distribute) my
own one, what steps needed if I use Windows.?
--
*Thanks &
On 2011-12-04, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:35 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 2011-12-03, Marc Haber wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:58:55 + (UTC), Philipp Kern
>> > wrote:
>> >>On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
>> >>> I also support this and think it is a really good id
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 15:25 +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:38:35 +, Ian Campbell
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:35 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >> On 2011-12-03, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:58:55 + (UTC), Philipp Kern
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:38:35 +, Ian Campbell
wrote:
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:35 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2011-12-03, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:58:55 + (UTC), Philipp Kern
> wrote:
>>On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> I also support this and think it is a really
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:35 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-12-03, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:58:55 + (UTC), Philipp Kern
> > wrote:
> >>On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
> >>> I also support this and think it is a really good idea. But please
> >>> keep x.y.z-1 around an
On 2011-12-03, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:58:55 + (UTC), Philipp Kern
> wrote:
>>On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> I also support this and think it is a really good idea. But please
>>> keep x.y.z-1 around and easily accessible when x.y.z is released.
>>You can jigdo any old
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:21:34 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
wrote:
>Philipp Kern writes:
>> On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> I also support this and think it is a really good idea. But please
>>> keep x.y.z-1 around and easily accessible when x.y.z is released.
>>
>> You can jigdo any old CD im
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:58:55 + (UTC), Philipp Kern
wrote:
>On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I also support this and think it is a really good idea. But please
>> keep x.y.z-1 around and easily accessible when x.y.z is released.
>
>You can jigdo any old CD image.
How do I do this for a past
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I also support this and think it is a really good idea. But please
>> keep x.y.z-1 around and easily accessible when x.y.z is released.
>
> You can jigdo any old CD image. It's just netinst that breaks.
> Normal CD images will continue
On 2011-12-02, Marc Haber wrote:
> I also support this and think it is a really good idea. But please
> keep x.y.z-1 around and easily accessible when x.y.z is released.
You can jigdo any old CD image. It's just netinst that breaks.
Normal CD images will continue to work just fine as they contai
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:34:03 +, Steve McIntyre
wrote:
>Marc Haber wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +, Ben Hutchings
>> wrote:
>>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>>
>>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>>notice the deployment failure
On 11/19/2011 01:34 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In terms of *why* those updates happen, that's quite simple: if Debian
> won't run on a user's new hardware, that user will typically simply
> ignore Debian. In (most) other packages, this isn't so critical - the
> latest shiny version doesn't matter
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:45:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>
>> Steve McIntyre writes:
>>
>>> Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>
>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
I woul
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Steve McIntyre writes:
>
>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +, Ben Hutchings
>>> wrote:
I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>>>notice the depl
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:15:13 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
wrote:
>Marc Haber writes:
>> The solution would be to offer additional install media with
>> additional support. The mere chance of introducing a regression is a
>> risk which I think should not be taken by Debian.
>
>Or just keeping the o
Steve McIntyre writes:
> Marc Haber wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +, Ben Hutchings
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>>
>>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>>notice the deployment failure well before the announcemen
Marc Haber writes:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:48:24 +, Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +, "Adam D. Barratt"
>>> wrote:
>>> >but
>>> >the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such thin
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:48:24 +, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +, "Adam D. Barratt"
>> wrote:
>> >but
>> >the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
>> >once they're aware of t
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +, "Adam D. Barratt"
> wrote:
> >but
> >the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
> >once they're aware of them.
>
> Why does the kernel team get an execption that is unan
Marc Haber wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +, Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
>>
>>I can't imagine why you would expect this to work.
>
>I wouldn't. The site was just surprised by the point release and did
>notice the deployment failure well before the announcement of the
>point release was receiv
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:43:32 +, "Adam D. Barratt"
wrote:
>but
>the kernel team have been very good in the past about fixing such things
>once they're aware of them.
Why does the kernel team get an execption that is unanonimously denied
to other, much less important parts of the distribution?
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:33 +, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
>> wrote:
>> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
>> >preparing to install a bunch of servers
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
>> wrote:
>> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
>> >preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day... then suddenly
>
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:08 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Additionally, the new[1] tg3 driver broke compatibility with the tg3
> chip built into IBM's HS12.
[...]
> [1] Why the heck do we allow changes like this in stable point
> releases?
Increasing the range of hardware on which a Debian stable rel
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:08:17PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
> wrote:
> >For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
> >preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day... then suddenly
> >there's a new stable update
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:00:26 +0100, Adam Borowski
wrote:
>For example: you download the current point release, burn it to a CD
>preparing to install a bunch of servers the next day... then suddenly
>there's a new stable update and installation mysteriously fails.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to not d
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:13 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:39:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
> >> > I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:39:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
>> > I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
>> > and tried to install the OS.
>>
>> Old netinst images gener
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 06:39:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
> > I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
> > and tried to install the OS.
>
> Old netinst images generally do not work, since the pac
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 04:10 +, Cherukuri, Shravan Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have an image of Debian-502-i386-netinst-iso which I burned to a CD
> and tried to install the OS.
>
> In the beginning everything was going on fine until the step where we
> select the mirror site to download.
>
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Andrew Fear wrote:
> Just looking for someone to talk to about getting 3dfx on the Debian
> releases going forward. Thanks.
The ideal person would be Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks,
--
Raul
On 3 Apr 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> While you're thinking about ordering, have you thought about
> integration Manoj's pkg-order into dpkg-http in order to provide more
> reasonable unpack/config/remove ordering to dpkg-http? Would this be
> extremely difficult to do? Do you need volunteers?
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Distribution"):
> Wait a sec. I think we have a definition or a perception problem here.
>
> What is debian 0.93R6?
> 1. Just the install disk set?
> 2. The install disk set plus a frozen set of base packages?
> 3. The install dis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) said:
> So bugfixes et cetera still go into a released release (eh published
> release). So we run into the great slackware problem that there are
> tons of version 2.2 (as an example).
>
> I don't agree to that. [...]
Wait a sec. I think we have a definition o
Hallo Ian Jackson!
}So, what we're left with, if you agree with my release strategy, is:
}
} released -> debian-0.93
} debian-0.93/binary [ bugfixes and urgent releases only ]
} source
} ms-dos
} Packages -> binary/Packages
} disks
So bugfix
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Distribution"):
> I'd suggest DEVELOPMENT, or WORKING, or IN_PROGRESS, or somesuch
> rather than CURRENT if these are to be visible to user-downloaders.
>
> CURRENT is likely not to be taken as bleeding-edge-and-unfinished
> by user
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:21:48 -0700
From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rather than re-arrange the current released system, let's put the
new organization in place for the "current" and "1.0" system, and
leave debian-0.93 where it is now so we don't mess up the mirrors
again
Rather than re-arrange the current released system, let's put the
new organization in place for the "current" and "1.0" system, and leave
debian-0.93 where it is now so we don't mess up the mirrors again.
That'll give us freedom to move things around for a while.
Thanks
Bruce
On Sat, 28 Oct 1995, Matthew Bailey wrote:
> AOUT -> RELEASED
> ELF -> CURRENT
I'd suggest DEVELOPMENT, or WORKING, or IN_PROGRESS, or somesuch
rather than CURRENT if these are to be visible to user-downloaders.
CURRENT is likely not to be taken as bleeding-edge-and-unfinished
by user-downloade
40 matches
Mail list logo
