Refracta Development, Scripts, etc.
Post a reply
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:31 am

Oops. I totally forgot that you had made these requests. You can check them out here.

> fsmithred wrote:Below is the revised vnc section. See if it makes more sense than the previous. I may have missed some of those toward the end.

None of it makes any sense to me as I don't do any networking. I just formatted and switched out the two VNC sections. No guarantees that I have gotten it right.

> fsmithred wrote:The root password is root.
> The user password is user.
> The next sentence starts here.

Done.

> fsmithred wrote:Edit: new package list will come with rc1, and I'll just name it "package_list" so that the link does not need changing.

All the documents are in the docs folder of the site. I retained the name of the package list that I copied (can't remember from where) - package_list_beta9.txt. Should I just rename it to package_list.txt? (It needs the .txt to open properly.)

> fsmithred wrote:Well, there shouldn't be any changes in the packages once we're at rc1 anyway.

Over on FDN (or on the list) I remember something about rc1 being for the installer not wheezy itself because releases don't use rc#s.
fsmithred

- fsmithred
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:13 pm

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:58 am

> golinux wrote:

> > fsmithred wrote:The root password is root.
> > The user password is user.
> > The next sentence starts here.

> Done.

I just looked at the text version, and both passwords are on one line, and it looks fine. I was keeping it under 78 characters, so it would fit on a console screen without wrapping. The html version with each on one line looks good, but now I'm not sure if it's really better than both on one line. Trying to hallucinate that here. Your artistic opinion on that?

> All the documents are in the docs folder of the site. I retained the name of the package list that I copied (can't remember from where) - package_list_beta9.txt. Should I just rename it to package_list.txt? (It needs the .txt to open properly.)

You pulled it off ibiblio last week. Yes, rename it to package_list.txt, and I'll just replace it with the newer one.

> Over on FDN (or on the list) I remember something about rc1 being for the installer not wheezy itself because releases don't use rc#s.

Which brings up another point - our numbering scheme for refracta might be confusing. It looks just like the numbering scheme for debian, but only the first digit is the same between refracta and debian versions. I was thinking about either dropping the last digit or removing the decimal points. So we'd be at 7.0 or maybe 701 when wheezy goes stable. I also haven't decided if I'm going to drop the "wheezy" from the name of the name of the iso. Opinions and ideas, please?
Anyway, the "rc1" I was going to put on the name has nothing to do with the "rc1" on the debian installer. Too confusing? I want the next iso I put up to be obviously something more baked than "beta". Refracta-7-almostbaked? Refracta-seven-stable-minus-one? Do I need another cup of coffee?
I hope to go through both the text and html release notes side by side this weekend, finish writing the additional parts and give you the final edits.
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:48 pm

> fsmithred wrote:

> > golinux wrote:

> > > fsmithred wrote:The root password is root.
> > > The user password is user.
> > > The next sentence starts here.

> > Done.

> I just looked at the text version, and both passwords are on one line, and it looks fine. I was keeping it under 78 characters, so it would fit on a console screen without wrapping. The html version with each on one line looks good, but now I'm not sure if it's really better than both on one line. Trying to hallucinate that here. Your artistic opinion on that?

IMO the text version does not have to be formatted identically to the html but the content should be exactly the same.

> fsmithred wrote:

> > All the documents are in the docs folder of the site. I retained the name of the package list that I copied (can't remember from where) - package_list_beta9.txt. Should I just rename it to package_list.txt? (It needs the .txt to open properly.)

> You pulled it off ibiblio last week. Yes, rename it to package_list.txt, and I'll just replace it with the newer one.

OK. Done.

> fsmithred wrote:Which brings up another point - our numbering scheme for refracta might be confusing. It looks just like the numbering scheme for debian, but only the first digit is the same between refracta and debian versions. I was thinking about either dropping the last digit or removing the decimal points. So we'd be at 7.0 or maybe 701 when wheezy goes stable. I also haven't decided if I'm going to drop the "wheezy" from the name of the name of the iso. Opinions and ideas, please?

Personally, I like the connection to wheezy. Tells folks up front exactly what refracta's lineage is and gives well-deserved credit. As to numbering . . . here's something totally different: refracta-wheezy-2013.1? A major change could be: refracta-wheezy-2013.2 yada, yada. I don't like the whole number thing.

> fsmithred wrote:Anyway, the "rc1" I was going to put on the name has nothing to do with the "rc1" on the debian installer. Too confusing?

Possibly. It sure has confused folks over at FDN. In keeping with my previous suggestion you could do refracta-wheezy-2013.rc1 which wouldn't be confusing but it is kinda long.

> fsmithred wrote:I want the next iso I put up to be obviously something more baked than "beta". Refracta-7-almostbaked? Refracta-seven-stable-minus-one? Do I need another cup of coffee?

Better than beer at this hour. Or skip the coffee and take a kung fu break. Much better way to get going.

> fsmithred wrote:I hope to go through both the text and html release notes side by side this weekend, finish writing the additional parts and give you the final edits.

Excellent! Consistency will give potential users confidence that refracta is a together project.
Are the VNC revisions OK?
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:57 pm

Special request: Please annotate any changes precisely. It will be painful enough to get it into the markup under the best of circumstances.
ukbrian

- ukbrian
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:22 am
- Location: Cheltenham, UK

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:14 pm

> > fsmithred wrote:I want the next iso I put up to be obviously something more baked than "beta". Refracta-7-almostbaked? Refracta-seven-stable-minus-one? Do I need another cup of coffee?

> Better than beer at this hour. Or skip the coffee and take a kung fu break. Much better way to get going.

Maybe you should head off to the grill my friend http://linuxbbq.org/grill/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:33 am

cameltoe?

> Loosely based on LinuxBBQ Boner

Next release will be deep-throat, i guess ...
After fecking for 1.5 hours with ruby-fixture-builder exactly what i needed to recover form headaches
(in the end it looks like "concern" would be implemented in "ruby-activerecords-3.2", but not "ruby-activerecords-2.3". Well: i guess that. Took me more than just a few "locate" to make that guess).
refracta-kung-fu? Sounds good to me for a pre-beta-post-alpha-minus-7 version.
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:32 pm

Can we please keep this thread to the project at hand? Static like this makes it harder to locate relevant info. Maybe the BBQ stuff could get moved to a separate thread? Thanks.
fsmithred

- fsmithred
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:13 pm

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:19 pm

I'm mostly done with the release notes and working on the readme files for installer, snapshot and 2usb. I assume you want all the changes at once. It won't be finished today.
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:57 pm

> golinux wrote:Can we please keep this thread to the project at hand? Static like this makes it harder to locate relevant info. Maybe the BBQ stuff could get moved to a separate thread? Thanks.

You mean harder to locate than in the existing seventeen pages?
Fine for me. Up to the next 17.
Perhaps, i said perhaps, you take this slightly too serious.
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Refracta wiki project

Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:04 pm

> fsmithred wrote:I'm mostly done with the release notes and working on the readme files for installer, snapshot and 2usb. I assume you want all the changes at once. It won't be finished today.

I can process them one at a time as you finish them. Doesn't have to be all at once.
Post a reply
Jump to:

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.

phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.