On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 21:37, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > Phil's argument that we consider the "vanilla" image default and so > should debian-cd is foolish IMHO. Well, it was more along the lines that "IF we consider vannalla default, then etc.", but since it's emerged that we don't, I'm completely OK with that, except perhaps that we need to do something about making sure that people grabbing the floppies could probably do with some hint that the stuff in the top directory might not be the best choice, Not that it will help most people --- If I'd not been part of this conversation, then I doubt I'd be reading the READMEs to see which my best bet was, I'd just grab the ones in .../current ... > We can do whatever, including keeping it as is, but it will just suck > continuing to answer all the FAQs and close all the bugs caused by > users booting with the vanilla set. Well, I'm certainly persuaded that the best bet is going to be an isolinux based CD, with idepci as the default, and vanilla, compat and bf24 available as alternatives. It saves space on the CD, works better than multiboot, and on the few BIOSs that are rumoured not to deal with ISOLINUX, people can always write a floppy or two, or boot off another CD. Cheers, Phil. -- Say no to software patents! http://petition.eurolinux.org/ |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part