Re: Multi-arch netinst getting too big
This powerpc user would rather not see powerpc dropped from the netinstall disk but accepts that it may be the time to do it in the interests of the much larger number of x86 based hardware in the wild.
- Chris Reich; Rochester, New York
twittername: chrisreich
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
> From: Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
> Subject: Re: Multi-arch netinst getting too big
> To: "Ian Campbell" <ijc@hellion.org.uk>
> Cc: "Goswin von Brederlow" <goswin-v-b@web.de>, debian-cd@lists.debian.org, debian-boot@lists.debian.org, debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 12:09 AM
> [ Added cc: to debian-powerpc for
> help... ]
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:44:15AM +0100, Ian Campbell
> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 22:46 +0100, Steve McIntyre
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:45:31PM +0200, Goswin
> von Brederlow wrote:
> >> >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> The netinsts are meant to have the base
> system, yes. I can't see
> >> >> anything obvious myself that we can drop.
> Maybe time to give up on
> >> >> powerpc on that image, like we've done on
> the m-a DVD. Shame, but
> >> >> there's only so much stuff we can
> accommodate here. Anybody else have
> >> >> an opinion here? Frans/Joey?
> >> >
> >> >Just a crcy idea: Could the plain i386 kernel
> be droped instead? That
> >> >would loose support for i486 and i586 cpus on
> the m-a CD. But is that
> >> >needed there?
> >>
> >> That's an option, yes. We could strip out the
> kernels for < 686
> >> systems here, but I'd like to keep them on if at
> all possible to make
> >> this image as universally useful as possible. I'd
> be more convinced to
> >> simply drop powerpc instead, like we already did
> for the multi-arch
> >> DVD.
> >
> >Sounds reasonable to me, but then I'm not a powerpc
> user...
> >
> >Does the CD image need powerpc, powerpc-smp and
> powerpc64 kernels?
> >Perhaps one of powerpc and powerpc-smp could be dropped
> (presuming that
> >the smp variant still works on a UP system dropping the
> UP could well be
> >reasonable).
>
> No idea, to be honest. Powerpc folks - thoughts?
>
> >Do you have any idea where perl (not perl-base) comes
> from? python (not
> >python-minimal) doesn't seem to be in the base system
> but is on the CD
> >as well. Similarly nothing seems to pull in binutils or
> doc-linux-text
> >deliberately. (I'm picking on these packages because
> they are the
> >largest components under pool/main/*)
>
> Hmmm. At the very least, debconf needs perl-base.
> linux-base then
> pulls in the main perl package later (via libapt-pkg-perl).
> As for
> python, I'm not seeing that on the current m-a netinst CD.
> We then
> have linux-headers-$foo -> gcc-4.3 -> binutils. I
> don't see
> doc-linux-text in the log either.
>
> (Looking at the log files make_disc_tree.log and
> sort_deps.i386.log
> for this info...)
>
> --
> Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
>
> steve@einval.com
> "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once
> I've worked out
> whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital
> letters are forecast."
> Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 20100708000935.GG4479@einval.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20100708000935.GG4479@einval.com
>
>
Reply to: