It's time for 5.1-R bits

[jason andrade]

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.

> > also, can we turn on permissions ? the ia64 bits and others
> > seem to be open access now ?
>
> They are?

when i last looked (and synced) they were 644 on the iso images, but
perhaps i was seeing things.  can we get a fresh eta on when we should
flip bits, if only because lots more stuff is now appearing in terms
of different architectures etc.

> (Yes, I'm deliberately not answering your first question...)

hmm, well i'll leave it at that i guess.  it'd be interesting to know
how many admins are 'manually' going to be around for this release and
how many are just relying on their automated mirrors.

regards,

-jason