[WBEL-users] I see that RHEL 3.0u3 is released - when can Whitebox respin 2 beexpected?

Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:30:52 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--=-CM0tZeYb5PcKuSKtAh/P
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi John,

Firstly I have got to say thank-you for all your work and efforts to
produce the Whitebox distribution - it is fantastic and was a saviour to
many people at just the right time. I have been following it from the
start and have it installed on about 50 machines on my site. It is a
very professional and well thought out project.

I have got to say that I think it is imperative that a new re-spin be
produced as there is so much trouble with SATA support at the moment
with the current installer - Whitebox just won't install onto a
considerable number of new motherboards due to SATA driver problems.

The new re-spin is required so that people who are non expert at Linux
can install Whitebox onto their SATA machines (which are just now
getting very prevalent). Most people who cannot get past the install
will just have to give up with Whitebox and move to another distribution
for these problem machines and I think that this would be a crying shame
as the work that you have done has helped so many people so much.

My circumstances are that I am a reasonably skilled Linux admin (three
years Linux and about 10 years UNIX) and I balk at having to re-compile
and build a new installation CD with support for the new devices - I
could probably do it but I doubt it would be achieved without a lot of
time and effort. The only other option is to build on a PATA drive and
migrate across to a SATA drive which I just don't have the time to do
for each machine. Due to this I have just recently had to install SUSE
9.1 onto a dozen new AMD64 machines with SATA drives as it "just works".
I really would like to avoid having to maintain two different
distributions on my site if at all possible.

So please, please please cut us a new respin...

Yours thankfully and hopefully

Gary Mansell

On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 02:56, John Morris wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Gary Mansell wrote:
>=20
> > Also, would it not be sensible to keep the Whitebox respin numbers =
in
> > sync with the Redhat update sequence? ie RHEL 3.0 update 3 becomes
> > Whitebox 3.0 respin 3.
>=20
> Think I have all of the srpms for U3, gotta get on building them.  But
> I'll probably do what I did for U1 and just spit em out as normal =
errata
> unless there is a must-have new feature in the installer.  Although I
> think there are some new SATA drivers in this new kernel so if a lot =
of
> folks are getting stuck I'd be open to the idea of doing a full =
respin. =20
> Also considering just how freaking HUGE U3 is, might go ahead and =
respin
> to make fresh installs go easier.
>=20
> Longer term I kinda suspect that around the U4 timeframe RH will be=20
> refocusing to RHEL4 and RHEL3 will be getting fewer new features, =
settling=20
> into an errata only mode.  When that happens I'd expect to slow =
respinning=20
> down from the current every other Update to something like every third =
or=20
> fourth one.
--=20

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and =
intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are =
addressed.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender =
immediately
and delete this e-mail from your system.  Please note that any views or =
opinions
presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not =
necessarily
represent those of Ricardo (save for reports and other documentation =
formally
approved and signed for release to the intended recipient).  Only =
Directors
or Duly Authorised Officers are authorised to enter into legally binding
obligations on behalf of Ricardo unless the obligation is contained =
within
a Ricardo Purchase Order.

Ricardo may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other =
telecommunications
on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.  By replying to this =
e-mail you
give consent to such monitoring.  The recipient should check this e-mail =
and
any attachments for the presence of viruses.  Ricardo accepts no =
liability for
any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.  "Ricardo" =
means
Ricardo plc and its subsidiary companies.

Ricardo plc is a public limited company registered in England with =
registered
number 00222915.
The registered office of Ricardo plc is Bridge Works, Shoreham-by Sea,
West Sussex, BN43 5FG.
=20

--=-CM0tZeYb5PcKuSKtAh/P
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="utf-8"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
 <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
CHARSET=3DUTF-8">
 <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"GtkHTML/3.0.9">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Hi John, 
 
Firstly I have got to say thank-you for all your work and efforts to =
produce the Whitebox distribution - it is fantastic and was a saviour to =
many people at just the right time. I have been following it from the =
start and have it installed on about 50 machines on my site. It is a =
very professional and well thought out project. 
 
I have got to say that I think it is imperative that a new re-spin be =
produced as there is so much trouble with SATA support at the moment =
with the current installer - Whitebox just won't install onto a =
considerable number of new motherboards due to SATA driver problems. 
 
The new re-spin is required so that people who are non expert at Linux =
can install Whitebox onto their SATA machines (which are just now =
getting very prevalent). Most people who cannot get past the install =
will just have to give up with Whitebox and move to another distribution =
for these problem machines and I think that this would be a crying shame =
as the work that you have done has helped so many people so much. 
 
My circumstances are that I am a reasonably skilled Linux admin (three =
years Linux and about 10 years UNIX) and I balk at having to re-compile =
and build a new installation CD with support for the new devices - I =
could probably do it but I doubt it would be achieved without a lot of =
time and effort. The only other option is to build on a PATA drive and =
migrate across to a SATA drive which I just don't have the time to do =
for each machine. Due to this I have just recently had to install SUSE =
9.1 onto a dozen new AMD64 machines with SATA drives as it &quot;just =
works&quot;. I really would like to avoid having to maintain two =
different distributions on my site if at all possible. 
 
So please, please please cut us a new respin... 
 
Yours thankfully and hopefully 
 
Gary Mansell 
 
 
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 02:56, John Morris wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
<PRE>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Gary Mansell wrote:

&gt; Also, would it not be sensible to keep the Whitebox respin numbers =
in
&gt; sync with the Redhat update sequence? ie RHEL 3.0 update 3 becomes
&gt; Whitebox 3.0 respin 3.

Think I have all of the srpms for U3, gotta get on building them.  But
I'll probably do what I did for U1 and just spit em out as normal errata
unless there is a must-have new feature in the installer.  Although I
think there are some new SATA drivers in this new kernel so if a lot of
folks are getting stuck I'd be open to the idea of doing a full respin.  =

Also considering just how freaking HUGE U3 is, might go ahead and respin
to make fresh installs go easier.

Longer term I kinda suspect that around the U4 timeframe RH will be=20
refocusing to RHEL4 and RHEL3 will be getting fewer new features, =
settling=20
into an errata only mode.  When that happens I'd expect to slow =
respinning=20
down from the current every other Update to something like every third =
or=20
fourth one.</I></FONT></PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
--  <BR>
<BR>=20
<font size=3D1 font face=3D"arial" color=3Dnavy>This e-mail and any =
files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the =
use of the individual or entity to=20

whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender =
immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that =
any views 
or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and =
do not necessarily represent those of Ricardo (save for reports and =
other 
documentation formally approved and signed for release to the intended =
recipient). Only Directors or Duly Authorised Officers are authorised =
to 
enter into legally binding obligations on behalf of Ricardo unless the =
obligation is contained within a Ricardo Purchase Order. 
 
Ricardo may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other =
telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By =
replying to 
this e-mail you give consent to such monitoring. The recipient should =
check e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Ricardo =
 
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by =
this e-mail. "Ricardo" means Ricardo plc and its subsidiary =
companies. 
 
Ricardo plc is a public limited company registered in England with =
registered number 00222915. 
The registered office of Ricardo plc is Bridge Works,Shoreham-by Sea, =
West Sussex, BN43 5FG.

</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-CM0tZeYb5PcKuSKtAh/P--