Re: slinkcd v 0.95 m68k & Alpha organization
On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Jim Westveer wrote:
>> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm. The du output from these runs is a bit suspect. Either m68k and
>> alpha are smaller than i386,
><snip>
>> du output:
>> du-alpha:561009 ./slink1
><snip>
>> du-m68k:470363 ./slink1
><snip>
>
>Yup, found the same thing. This brings up an interesting point;
>do you want to treat each arch the same? The m68k and Alpha have
>fewer packages, and binary will probably fit on on disk. (famous last words)
>
>My m68k (disk1) came out as:
> 480266240 Dec 23 20:32 m68k.slink1.raw
>and Alpha was:
> 572381184 Dec 23 08:05 slink1.alpha.raw
>
>I have not tried changing slink.list1 to try to fill up
>the first disk more....perhaps after santa goes home.
I'm tempted to say we should keep the layouts as similar as possible
unless we have a pressing need to do otherwise. And (checking) we just
can't fit all of main onto the first CD anyway. Given that, I'd say keep
things simple and consistent as it won't really gain us anything anyway.
Anyway - one question, mainly for the -devel people I guess: should the
m68k and alpha versions of slink have the same number of packages as for
i386? I'd have instantly said yes to start with, but this doesn't seem to
be the case... A simple count of the number of Packages: lines in the
output Packages files shows:
total for m68k: 2197
total for alpha: 2299
total for i386: 2697
Hello?
--
Steve McIntyre, stevem@chiark.greenend.org.uk The Unix world's best mod player
<a href=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~stevem/mikmod/>MikMod</a>
"Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, +------------------
"Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I..." |Finger for PGP key
Reply to: