Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current

On 9 January 2012 21:06, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Chris Rees <utisoft_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Mark Linimon <linimon_at_lonesome.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>>> So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on
>>>>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being "9.0 RELEASE" (with
>>>>> checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually
>>>>> release images per-se ?
>>>>
>>>> Excellent!  You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative,
>>>> sentences that have no qualifying phrases.
>>>>
>>> FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence pointing out that FreeBSD is
>>> currently officially distributing non-released build in a directory
>>> which might leads users to consider this is the official release, thus
>>> misleading them.
>>
>> So, a pointless email.
>>
> as is linimon_at_'s.
>
>>>> 9.0 will be *released* when and only when the official, signed, email
>>>> goes out.  Everything up until that point is preparation.
>>>>
>>> ok, I'm a stupid lazy user (obviously)... While browsing the ftp, I
>>> see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory. Do you expect me to consult
>>> freebsd-announce_at_, verify the signature of the announce, the hash of
>>> the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has been released ? No, I see 9.0
>>> ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been released,
>>> whatever your spreading process is.
>>>
>>> Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP.
>>
>> Have you checked the website? The latest supported release is clearly
>> specified, right in the middle of the home page.
>>
>> Please don't tell me you'd look in ftp before checking the website.  I
>> think you're just looking to nitpick.
>>
> I did look the ftp before the website. It is an irrelevant source of
> information as I assume none of that stuff to be up-to-date. re_at_ has
> an unimpressive track record about information update.

Ridiculous assumption.

I don't know who in re_at_ upset you so much, but you seriously need to
get over it and stop trying to prove they're idiots.

Constructive feedback is welcome, deliberately finding fault with
strange things is not.

Chris