[3653] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Doc out of date
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Sun Mar 17 01:09:34 2002
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 01:09:22 -0500
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
To: Angie Kelic <sly@MIT.EDU>
Cc: linux-dev@MIT.EDU, Richard Tibbetts <tibbetts@MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <20020317060922.GI8045@multics.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200203170605.BAA10599@wolverine.mit.edu>
Angie Kelic <sly@MIT.EDU> wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2002
at 01:05:34 -0500 in <200203170605.BAA10599@wolverine.mit.edu>:
> Unfortunately this is more complicated than you seem to
> express below.
> Simply telling a user to type 'update_ws 9.0' is useless
> if they don't have hesiod information.
I was under the impression that the installation had been fixed
such that it worked regardless of hesiiod information.
That was because Greg said in <200109301329.JAA28102@egyptian-gods.MIT.EDU>:
| As of 8.4.21, Linux machines have been able to take updates
| (automatic or manual) without cluster info, as long as they are
| updating to a version in the current full release. The problem here
| is that 8.4 is not the current full release and (as we all know) the
| update from broken-8.4.25 to 9.0.x doesn't work, so users without
| clusterinfo are stuck performing a more complicated procedure.
Do I misinterpret him as saying that hesiod information is not
required for the 9.0 update?
> When I have more 'free time' -- see "Not until after the beginning
> of April" -- I will look into what needs to change in the documentation
> in more detail. SInce this really only matters to people that already
> have hesiod info and want to update "right away" as opposed to letting
> the update happen, it doesn't seem more critical than that.
It seems to me that most people who come in and ask about installing
linux either ask at that time, or come back/call back asking how to get
9.0 because they don't want 8.4.
--jhawk
