On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 20:25, Philip Hands wrote: pre12 is now mostly out. Still have slightly outsized CDs for powerpc alpha sparc, since I appear to be making an asymptotic approach to the size I want. The non-deterinistic nature of the size calculation is rather irritating. If anyone thinks they understand it enough to be able to make worthwhile predictions about the size of the CDs, I'd appreciate a hint. Anyway, since I forced some things onto CD#1 for pre12, I thought I'd analyse what had changed as a result. Here: http://www.hands.com/~phil/debian/debian-cd/pre11-pre12-CD1-diffs.txt is a table showing all the packages that were on any of the architectures (except mips, because that's not been rebuilt yet) in either pre11 or pre12, but was not on all the CDs, on all archs. Each cell in the table is either: blank == package not on CD1_NONUS for pre11 or pre12 for that arch. < == package was on pre11, but not pre12 > == package was not on pre11, but is no pre12 - == package was on both versions for that architecture Mostly, it reveals that it makes little difference forcing those packages on for most architectures. Alpha loses postgresql, and some python. Powerpc loses mc. Other than that I don't see much to get excited about. s390 doesn't seem to have lost anything --- more evidence that that packing algorithm is a bit dim, or that the size limit is not being enforced properly. So the question is, should we actually be forcing these packages onto CD#1, given that people will generally only find out they are there after they've stopped needing them, or should we stick with the un-tweaked setup, and sort out the tasks etc for 3.0r1 so that the packages are promoted due to being in packages? 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