Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:06:14 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> To: jason andrade <jason@dstc.edu.au> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.0-DP2/ia64 uploaded to ftp-master Message-ID: <200211202306.gAKN6EEY062477@intruder.bmah.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211210826180.1833-100000@sunburn.dstc.edu.au> References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211210826180.1833-100000@sunburn.dstc.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-1147897844P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, jason andrade wrote: > we've mirrored the 5.0-DP2 releases for i386, ia64 and pc98 here at > ftp.au.freebsd.org. it's great to see FreeBSD coming out with > the multiple architecture support, though it's going to be much > more interesting for mirrors in the future.. are alpha, ppc and > sparc likely to be 5.0 releases ? alpha and sparc64, no powerpc. We'll see five platforms for 5.0-RELEASE: alpha, ia64, i386, pc98, and sparc64. i386 and alpha will have packages. pc98 can use the i386 packages. The situation for ia64 and sparc64 is a bit murky; there are no ports building clusters for these architectures yet, but I would like to see at least a Perl package for each of these. > at the moment the release layout is a bit inconsistent between architectures. > > e.g > > releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/5.0-DP2/ > > -rw-r--r-- 1 1006 1006 582746112 Nov 17 00:23 5.0-DP2-disc1.iso > -rw-r--r-- 1 1006 1006 312606720 Nov 17 00:21 5.0-DP2-disc2.iso > > > releases/ia64/ISO-IMAGES/5.0-DP2/ > > -rw-rw-r-- 342589440 2002/11/21 05:48:50 disc2.iso > -rw-rw-r-- 290750464 2002/11/21 05:46:26 miniinst.iso Aw, cr*p. My fault. The filenames should have been analogous to i386. Sorry about that, folks. :-( (Well, the layout is consistent...it's just the names that weren't.) > it is probably too late to do anything with this release (as mirrors > will already start pulling it down, though so far ia64 hasn't > appeared very quickly), but would it be possible to standardize on > something like: > > <version>-<state>-<arch>-<type>.iso ? > > 5.0-DP2-i386-disc1.iso > > 5.0-DP2-ia64-disc1.iso > > 5.0-DP2-ia64-mini.iso > > and later (?) > > 5.0-R-i386-disc1.iso This seems like a good idea with the minor change that If It Was Up To Me, I'd name the latter image "5.0-RELEASE-i386-disc1.iso". Let me knock this around with the other REs. I agree that having the image name include the architecture would be a good thing. We could have our release building scripts automatically create the ISO images with more descriptive filenames, but I don't know if I want to diddle with those at this point (maybe later though). Thanks! Bruce. --==_Exmh_-1147897844P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5+ 20020506 iD8DBQE93BVm2MoxcVugUsMRAmv9AKDZXV6JGVhXrQXL9Hg5gGQTRohm5QCgiYHX bAKpun9OiBeCE2/K5ThHOrA= =bvou -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1147897844P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hubs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211202306.gAKN6EEY062477>