On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Richard Creighton wrote:
This would require remastering 10.3 and we want to avoid that. How is that? Deltas are used all the time to update the alpha/beta releases, how is this different? Just curious. When we master a new alpha, we create a delta to the last one. But this time we don't want to master a new release. We only want to provide a meaning for
Am Mittwoch 31 Oktober 2007 schrieb Ken Schneider: the few that have a problem on their hardware. If I understand this statement correctly, only a few people experienced
Stephan Kulow wrote: the inability to utilize the repair module on the install disk? That is good news indeed. I thought 100% of the people that had an inability to boot their installed system and therefore unable to reach the released patch to the repair program would fail to be able to use the install disk to repair their installation sufficiently to boot sufficiently to be able to reach the patched repair program. If as you say, this broken installation disk only affects a few people, then I can understand the attitude of 'why bother'.
I do not know anyone that is able to use the repair system. I am talking about aprox... 200 users. This to me is a major pita. I really think that we should get a delta. I really need to create new iso's. I am getting pestered because of the repair system.
I know publishing an new set of *.iso files with some of the fixes would inconvenience a few people at openSuSE.org and do nothing for SuSE's reputation. The facts are that important parts of 10.3 were released broken and the fixes can't be distributed by 'updates' unless those updates are included in the boxes people are now receiving in the mailbox...and it doesn't appear that they are.
This is the general opion I am seeing. I could not upgrade/install 6
systems with the download DVD. They install/upgrade fine with the 10.2,
but 10.3 is really boarked. I do have 2 out of 10 system running 10.3.
--
Boyd Gerber