Re: Are iso images really just LinuxPPC 2000 lite and the real images not up yet?

[Martin Costabel <costabel@wanadoo.fr>]

Part of the confusion may come from the fact that the README files in
the images folder are not visible if you look at it via http, i.e.
http://ftp.linuxppc.org/ftp/linuxppc-2000/images/

If you look at it via ftp, i.e.
ftp://ftp.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-2000/images/, or on the mirrors, you see
3 README files explaining the situation.

Seeing that many people downloaded the thing 3 or more times for lack of
any instruction how to handle it, the idea of putting up a "lite"
version doesn't seem to have worked out as intended. And I am still
waiting impatiently for the contents (as opposed to the images) of
LinuxPPC 2000 to show up on the ftp server (as well as the CDs in my
mailbox). I am almost starting to feel the attraction of YDL whose
newest release is there on their server, files and ISO images and
everything.

--
Martin

Kevin Hendricks wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In another e-mail I just received someone said they thought the Mar 3 iso
> images on ftp.linuxppc.org are simply mislabeled and they are really LinuxPPC
> 2000 lite (which makes sense since no development stuff is there).
>
> Is this all just some mis-labeling of the images?
>
> Are the iso images really the LinuxPPC 2000 Lite images with the real images
> to come later?
>
> I am still confused here?  They are dated Mar 3 which Robert Shaw's BlueG3 site
> said were the true images.
>
> Is ftp.linuxppc.org simply out of date?
>
> Anyone with some guidance about all of this?

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/