Re: md5sum and 3.1_r0a debian sarge

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 06:59 +0200, John Que wrote: > Hello, > I am a newbie to Debian. > I had downloaded the dvd iso for debian: > http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/3.1_r0a/i386/iso-dvd > This site is condisered the primary CD image server > according to http://www.d

md5sum and 3.1_r0a debian sarge

Hello,  I am a newbie to Debian. I had downloaded the dvd iso for debian: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/3.1_r0a/i386/iso-dvd This site is condisered the primary CD image server according to http://www.debian.org. (I downloaded it through http because there was some problem with my

Re: 3.1_r0a

I see. Thanks. On 6/10/05, Maurits van Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:11:44PM +0800, hell0 un1verse wrote: > > I found that the release was named "3.1_r0a". Just for curiosity, what > > does that "a" mean? > > It si

Re: 3.1_r0a

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >HI, a simple question here, when I wanted to download the netinst ISO >image for Sarge at this address: >http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/3.1_r0a/i386/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-i386-netinst.iso > >I found that the release was name

Re: 3.1_r0a

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:11:44PM +0800, hell0 un1verse wrote: > I found that the release was named "3.1_r0a". Just for curiosity, what > does that "a" mean? It simply means it is the first update to the 3.1_r0 release. It was released just a day after the original re

Re: 3.1_r0a

Hello *, On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:11:44PM +0800, hell0 un1verse wrote: > HI, a simple question here, when I wanted to download the netinst ISO > image for Sarge at this address: > http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/3.1_r0a/i386/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-i386-netinst.iso > > I found t

3.1_r0a

HI, a simple question here, when I wanted to download the netinst ISO image for Sarge at this address: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/3.1_r0a/i386/iso-cd/debian-31r0a-i386-netinst.iso I found that the release was named "3.1_r0a". Just for curiosity, what does that "a" mean? Thanks.

Re: 3.1_r0a ?

On 6/8/05, Hans du Plooy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > What's the difference between 3.1_r0 and 3.1_r0a? http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg3.html Best regards, Hannes.

Re: 3.1_r0a CDs 7 & 8

Why you dont try the DVD images over Bittorrent? That would be much better that download 14 CD images or not? greetz Dominik On 6/8/05, Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 08 June 2005 01:14 pm, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > I've been trying with torrent, but can't get it to work,

Re: 3.1_r0a CDs 7 & 8

On Wednesday 08 June 2005 01:14 pm, Hal Vaughan wrote: > I've been trying with torrent, but can't get it to work, so I've been > downloading cd images (several local friends need CDs since they have bad > connections).  Is it just me, or is there a problem with finding images for > CDs 7 & 8 for 3.

3.1_r0a CDs 7 & 8

I've been trying with torrent, but can't get it to work, so I've been downloading cd images (several local friends need CDs since they have bad connections). Is it just me, or is there a problem with finding images for CDs 7 & 8 for 3.1r0a anywhere? The links are there, at least at the main s

Re: 3.1_r0a ?

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:13:48 +0200 Hans du Plooy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 09:31 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > 3.1r0a fixes a minor bug in the originally mastered CD/DVD images > > that caused the installer to insert `testing' instead of sarge into > > the sources.l

Re: 3.1_r0a ?

Hello *, [ partially following your Reply-To ] On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:13:48PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 09:31 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > 3.1r0a fixes a minor bug in the originally mastered CD/DVD images that > > caused the installer to insert `testing' inst

Re: 3.1_r0a ?

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 09:31 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > 3.1r0a fixes a minor bug in the originally mastered CD/DVD images that > caused the installer to insert `testing' instead of sarge into the > sources.list of a newly installed system. You really only need it if > you are going to insta

Re: 3.1_r0a ?

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:26:07PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote: > Hi guys, > > What's the difference between 3.1_r0 and 3.1_r0a? > 3.1r0a fixes a minor bug in the originally mastered CD/DVD images that caused the installer to insert `testing' instead of sarge into the s

3.1_r0a ?

Hi guys, What's the difference between 3.1_r0 and 3.1_r0a? Thanks -- Kind Regards Hans du Plooy SagacIT (Pty) Ltd hansdp at sagacit dot com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]