[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why is sarge "minimal" intall so huge compared to woody?



Am 2005-02-12 05:35:06, schrieb Joao Clemente:

> Hum? What is 64MB? 102 packages is almost the same as the number I 
> reported, but 64 MB is way off the 152 MB my woody occupies (and I 
> installed in a ext3 partition also, dunno the block size)

My Servers have:

hda1    250 MB  /               Rescue system
hda2    250 MB  swap    
hda3    500 MB  /tmp    
hda5    500 MB  /prod1          First productions system
hda6    250 MB  /prod1/var/log
hda7    500 MB  /prod2          Second productions system
hda8    250 MB  /prod2/var/log
...

Now if I update to Sarge it does not moer fit on the Partitons
I have to reinstall 26 Servers...

> >With the base of Sarge I do nt know the Packages,
> >but there are 190 MByte.
> 
> Once again, what is 190 MByte?

Baseinstall of SARGE without any additional Packages selected.

> And once again, I cannot understand your reasoning here.... I just said 
> above that sarge takes 372 MB TOTAL, you say a 500 MByte partition is 
> too small for your upgrade for sarge? I must be missing something here...

Install apache, php, courier-*, ssh and some other
required Server packages... and you know what I mean.

Some of the Packages are in SARGE tree to four times
bigger as in WOODY, - and I do not need it !!!

This ist, why I try to continue with WOODY.

You know:       Don't touch a running System!

> Joao Clemente

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ 
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917                  ICQ #328449886
                   50, rue de Soultz         MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356    67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

Attachment: signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: