On Sun, 10 Dec 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If there is interest I can post my "ftp.debian.org" file for mirror.
>
> --
> Dirk Eddelb|ttel
> http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
>
I prefer that they use the extra accounts instead of a single file that
will do al
Michael Alan Dorman writes:
Michael> Although they could mirror if they had a special userid/password
Michael> (as I believe has been set up)---they would just have to do it in
Michael> multiple parts...
As the maintainer of the mirror package, I am happy to confirm that you do
not need
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Making the parent directory unreadable caused mirror programs to not mirror
> that directory. They might mirror the symlink, but it won't do much good.
Although they could mirror if they had a special userid/password (as I
believe has been set up)---they
Making the parent directory unreadable caused mirror programs to not mirror
that directory. They might mirror the symlink, but it won't do much good.
Bruce
--
Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
>> It seems like this will cause the mirrors carrying 1.0 to download
>> the whole tree again. If we're going to do that, perhaps we should
>> have the debian-development (or whatever) be the directory tree and
>> debian-1. be a symlink to it. That way, the next bump of
>> the version number wou
> On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > It seems like this will cause the mirrors carrying 1.0 to download
> > the whole tree again. If we're going to do that, perhaps we should
> > have the debian-development (or whatever) be the directory tree and
> > debian-1. be a symlink to it. T
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Bill Mitchell wrote:
>
> It seems like this will cause the mirrors carrying 1.0 to download
> the whole tree again. If we're going to do that, perhaps we should
> have the debian-development (or whatever) be the directory tree and
> debian-1. be a symlink to it. That way, the
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> > I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so
> > that authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on
> > the Infomagic CD.
>
> This is a good idea.
It seems like
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Ian Murdock wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I wouldn't make the development release *too* hard to get to, as a few
> people have suggested doing. I think that having a separate login for
> getting it is excessive. It's in our best interest to make the
> dev
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so
> that authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on
> the Infomagic CD.
This is a good idea.
Regarding the use of a code name for the release: Considering what's
Bruce Perens writes:
Bruce> Yes, a code name would be a good idea. Let's hold off on that until
Bruce> Ian Murdock can do it - I've stuck my neck out enough today.
We could also "hide" in private/project.
--
Dirk Eddelb|ttelhttp://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Yes, a code name would be a good idea. Let's hold off on that until Ian Murdock
can do it - I've stuck my neck out enough today.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
> I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so that
> authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on the Infomagic
> CD.
Sound like a good idea, however, I would go one step further and
remove the version number completely (and possibly go with a code
n
I think we should deprecate 1.0 and bump the version number to 1.1, so that
authentic copies of the release are not confused with the one on the Infomagic
CD.
I still haven't heard from Ian Murdock, who is moving his residence and no
doubt busy. Does anyone have a way for me to reach him?
14 matches
Mail list logo
