On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 11:33:39AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote
> On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > With the current multi-cd layout, the optimal way IMHO is to go the way I
> > chose: the Packages.cd file on each binary CD knows about the contents of
> > itself and any previous binary CDs, so (using the example above):
> > Packages.cd files on binary CD#1 list packages on CD#1
> > Packages.cd files on binary CD#2 list packages on CD#1 and CD#2
> > (source disks don't contain Packages files at all)
> > Packages.cd files on binary CD#5 list packages on CD#1, CD#2 and CD#5
> > Then the user is told to run the Update step in dselect using the last
> > binary CD. This _is_ a problem, admittedly - the instructions are not made
> > clear enough. That's why I've suggested adding a simple message to the
> > multicd update code to make sure people can't miss it.
> As a Debian CD vendor, I must say I like this scheme very much. It allows me
> to make a third Binary CD (non-free/non-US) that is completely compatible with
> the first two Official Binary CDs. For the documentation says "insert the last
> Binary CD" which is (in this case) my Extras CD.
> In the case that the Packages.cd files are identical on the first and second
> Binary CDs, it gets far more confusing. For then the docs on the Official CDs
> should be like: "insert either one of the Binary CDs; but if you have a
> unofficial vendor-supplied CD, insert that one instead." Try to explain that
> to a newbie. (Which is BTW the correct spelling, according to the Jargon
I deal with this by including my own documentation, that both tells people
what they have and points them to the "official" instructions, and
prominently sets out the (minor) differences between the "official"
instructions and those required to use my disks.
"Oh - I - you know - my job is to fear everything." - Bill Gates in Denmark
- Re: Ideas
- From: Steve McIntyre <email@example.com>
- Re: Ideas
- From: "J.A. Bezemer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>