It's time for 5.1-R bits

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:28:55PM +1000, jason andrade wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> 
> > > preferably to ISO-IMAGES/5.1
> >
> > >From what scottl told me briefly, this was a simple mistake.  I'm not
> > sure if it's worth fixing at this late date (i.e. if we rename them,
> > isn't that going to cause a lot of thrashing as the mirrors re-fetch
> > the bits with the corrected pathnames?).
> >
> > I'd rather that we had got it right in the first place, clearly.
> 
> sigh..  my $0.02 is to change it by hardlinking the images into
> 5.1/ and then removing the older 5.1-RELEASE a bit later.
> 
> but this of course won't help mirrors using ftp instead of rsync
> so i guess it's not all that great a solution to stop multiple
> syncing/deletion.  hmm.  IMHO the thrash factor is pretty low
> in this instance and it's worth being consistent before the
> announcement goes out.
> 
> personally i have made everything consistent with ISO-IMAGES/5.1/
> across all architectures manually, so i hope that is not a problem.

I prefer "local" consistency over global consistency, with which I
mean that if there's an ia64/5.0-RELEASE directory already, we should
call it ia64/5.1-RELEASE and not ia64/5.1 even if there's an i386/5.1

> > They are?
> 
> when i last looked (and synced) they were 644 on the iso images, but
> perhaps i was seeing things.

You may have been syncing in the middle of uploading.

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel at xcllnt.net