Re: installation of `standard' packages comes as a surprise
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:06:20PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Of course, debconf itself could just be put in base, and we could forget
> all about debconf-tiny. Which is fine iff the extra 130k size of debconf
> isn't a problem. Another option would be splitting out a debconf-doc package,
> which would be a 78k package, and would reduce debconf proper to just 52k --
> only 31k larger than debconf-tiny is now. (All numbers are package size,
> installed size is larger.)
>
> How important is the size of the base system?
It's important if you are installing from floppies :) But I suspect floppy
based installs are becoming less common. I know Randolph started the "compact"
flavours in an effort to reduce the number of floppies required so there are
at least some folks concerned about the size. I don't think it's a big
problem myself. Heck, we even had the full perl package in there only a few
months back.
I would go for the option of splitting out debconf-doc (have debconf recommend
debconf-doc so it gets sucked in later) and do away with debconf-tiny. What
do others think?
Greg
Reply to: