Bruce Perens writes ("Re: debian-1.0 availability"):
> > [wuarchive] systems/linux/tsx-11/distributions/debian/debian-1.0/sources
> > is empty !!!
>
> I thought the GPL only required you to provide the sources
> _when_someone_asks_for_them_.
>
> We did lea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Robert Leslie writes:
> Robert> I don't know about other mirrors, but AFAICT tsx-11.mit.edu
> Robert> doesn't even carry the 0.93R6 release any more. It only offers
> Robert> debian-1.0.
>
>It's getting jucier by the
Dear Robert Leslie!
}I don't know about other mirrors, but AFAICT tsx-11.mit.edu doesn't even carry
}the 0.93R6 release any more. It only offers debian-1.0.
I have just looked at sunsite. I thought they carry the whole tree,
but they don't. They only offer 0.93*. That
> [wuarchive] systems/linux/tsx-11/distributions/debian/debian-1.0/sources
> is empty !!!
I thought the GPL only required you to provide the sources
_when_someone_asks_for_them_.
We did learn a lesson today.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Dirk Eddelb|ttel
Robert Leslie writes:
Robert> I don't know about other mirrors, but AFAICT tsx-11.mit.edu
Robert> doesn't even carry the 0.93R6 release any more. It only offers
Robert> debian-1.0.
It's getting jucier by the minute:
This domain has a local wuarchive mirror.
I don't know about other mirrors, but AFAICT tsx-11.mit.edu doesn't even carry
the 0.93R6 release any more. It only offers debian-1.0.
--
Robert Leslie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I was going to suggest with all these people querying about 1.0 that we have
>an an account on ftp.debian.org with access to debian-1.0 directory so we
>lock out normal public ftp access. I myself have noticed quite a few people
>coming in and nabbing 1.0 packages thinking that t
From: Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 16:14:06 MET
The Packages file in /debian/private/project/debian-1.0/binary/ is
wrong. The recently added field filename: ... in this file is
containing wrong information on the location of the file. I
site
The Packages file in /debian/private/project/debian-1.0/binary/ is
wrong. The recently added field filename: ... in this file is containing
wrong information on the location of the file. It says: debian-0.93 where
this should be debian-1.0 or is it intended to show another location if
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> it might create problems for the mirrors.
I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
mirrors will find it unless they are explicitly looking for it. That
means put it under private/project or something. We can have a few designated
mirror sites
Should I physically copy everything from debian-0.93 to debian-1.0, or
should I use symbolic links when possible to save disk space? I know
it isn't a problem on ftp.debian.org, but it might create problems for
the mirrors.
11 matches
Mail list logo
