Re: MILO size problems
On Mon 06 Mar 2000, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> c) Putting it in base2_2.tgz doesn't sound like a good idea
> ... remember we have different subarchitectures still, with
> different kernel images.
> d) It's useful in case you get kernel oopsen.
You shouldn't :-)
> e) We should be deprecating MILO anyway. The extra disk is only
> necessary on MILO installs, and every other arch has separate
> rescue and root disks now too... Also CD installs won't need any
I have an XLT... need I say more :-/
> For better or worse I think we're stuck with the MILO disks. I've
> made them 720K images, which should save some downloading time.
That reminds me, why aren't these images gzipped (or better bzip2'ed)?
After all, we have gzip.exe (or had it) in the tools directory together
with rawrite.exe for those that need to make floppy images from dos.
Most of these floppy images will compress very well (more so if you
remember to 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/floppy/zero; rm /floppy/zero' while
finishing up the floppy image. This way it doesn't matter if you use
720kB or 1440kB.
home: email@example.com http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: email@example.com http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.isdn4linux.de/