Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:56:59 -0800 From: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG (Bruce A. Mah) 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: <200211210156.gAL1uxoJ063953@intruder.bmah.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211211058030.1833-100000@sunburn.dstc.edu.au> References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211211058030.1833-100000@sunburn.dstc.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
If memory serves me right, jason andrade wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> i'm assuming the latter bit means there are no dedicated ia64/sparc64
> machines in your package building cluster - only with whoever is actually
> rolling the release ?
Correct.
> > Aw, cr*p. My fault. The filenames should have been analogous to i386.
> > Sorry about that, folks. :-(
>
> no worries. you could (temporarily) fix this by creating symlinks to
> disc2 and miniinst.iso
I thought about this but then I realized that 5.0-DP2 wasn't going to be
up for *that* long (I presume we'll delete it after 5.0-RELEASE).
> > 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
>
> i've got no issues there.
>
> > 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).
>
> i don't understand the latter, but if in the future we get the above
> naming for isos, that'd be great.
The Makefile that builds a release (and consequently the ISO images)
could easily name an ISO image "${BUILDNAME}-${ARCH}-miniinst.iso"
rather than "miniinst.iso". (In fact, that basically describes the
patch I'd make.)
> one other point, the IA64 miniinst doesn't appear to come with any of
> the traditional docs that a installer has, and the disc2 appears to be
> a "live" filesystem of some sort. is that correct ? there are no
> documents of any kind in the unpacked tree either
>
> (e.g *.TXT/*.HTM)
disc2 is a live filesystem as it is for all architectures.
You are correct, the miniinst.iso for ia64 has no docs. I am not sure
why, but my first guess would be doc toolchain issues.
sparc64 (when it is uploaded) will have no docs either...the doc
toolchain for sparc64 is dependant on a binutils upgrade that will
hopefully happen before 5.0-RC1.
If these don't get resolved by the release, we can put them on
manually, I suppose.
Cheers,
Bruce.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5+ 20020506
iD8DBQE93D1r2MoxcVugUsMRAigbAKDbdATvnirImuWWkY72rjOuKGg90gCfYBrk
xB7+7J1PAmFA8Xv6DSIV+tk=
=Bhcy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211210156.gAL1uxoJ063953>