Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 03:45:51PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> In preparation for our SMGL ports (PPC, SPARC, and possibly Irix (unet?)),
> I would like our ISOs to be renamed as follows:
> 
> smgl-<version>.<arch>.iso
> 
> I made everything lowercase (I dislike upper case, but if enough people
> whine we can keep it upper case... ;)).  I also removed the 'ISO' label,
> as the extension labels it as an ISO, no need having the name repeat it.
> 
> Examples:
> smgl-6.1.i386.iso
> smgl-6.1.ppc.iso (Do we need other naming?  .g3, .g4 instead, similar to
> .i386?)
> smgl-6.1.sparc.iso
> smgl-6.1.sparc64.iso (requires a 64-bit kernel to boot, could possibly
> combine the two SPARC ISOs into one and just have the user select which
> kernel to load, as the rest of the applications can (and should, according
> to people on #sparc) be compiled as 32-bit).
> etc.
> 

sounds reasonable to me.
what do we do about beta releases, testing releases, or release
candidates? (or whatever we want to call them)

I think for the most part our ported isos, ie ppc or sparc ought to
aim for the lowest common denominator, then the installee can optimize
afterwards. Assuming the same kernel and software can boot a g3 or g4 we
dont need to have an iso for both. Im not sure if it would be possible
to combine a sparc and sparc64 iso, however im not the one porting it
so i have no idea. I like the idea of just differentiating with sparc
and sparc64 for now.