Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:46:38 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: "Allen Pulsifer" <pulsifer@mediaone.net> Cc: "Mitch Collinsworth" <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] Message-ID: <24701.953955998@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:41:44 EST." <NBBBJNDFEKPEHPFCLNLHMEOOGFAA.pulsifer@mediaone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't really like the "4.0a" since that's still not truly indicative of anything besides "change" - what about a changelog to accompany the image? When you see a new changelog entry and a new checksum next to it (I'd merge changelog and checksum information), you can compare to see which revision you have and what changes were done subsequently. - Jordan > That's not a bad idea. > > How about it Jordan? Is there some way of distinguishing the various > iterations of ISO image that are produced as you try to roll a good > release? Maybe you could put a single letter suffix after the name, > such as, "4.0a-install.iso", "4.0b-install.iso", etc.? > That would also help identify the exact file to which > checksum.md5 is referring. > > Allen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mitch Collinsworth [mailto:mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU] > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 7:06 PM > > To: Allen Pulsifer > > Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG > > Subject: Re: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] > > > > > > > > >I started a download from ftp.freebsd.org this Tues, and it took about > > >24 hours to complete. The checksum matched up ok, but it looks like > > >the ISO image has changed since then. > > > > yep, that's it. my checksum matches the old file. guess I should have > > grabbed the checksum file first. :-) I hadn't notice the date change. > > > > That's one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about the way fbsd > > releases are being managed. I have absolutely no problem with the > > release being re-done for just about any reason they think is > > justifiable. But there really should be a field somewhere in the > > version/release number to allow distinguishing between one and another. > > Anything that's important enough to warrant re-issueing the release is > > obviously important enough to have a number to indicate the version you > > have has that revision in it. > > > > -Mitch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24701.953955998>