[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Slink Source images



humm...I copied the wrong file sizes that I have 
for slink3 and four....they should have been:

arch-i386
  slink3.raw   615192 Kb    Sat Feb 20 09:41:00 1999 
  slink4.raw   577894 Kb    Sat Feb 20 09:47:00 1999 

This is more in line with what Phil currently has on
sunsite.org.uk.

Phill, did you turn off non-US ???

Jim Westveer
--------------------------------------------------
The software required Win95 or better, 
so I installed Linux.
--------------------------------------------------
Jim Westveer ------------- jwest@netnw.com 
phone -------------------- 425-392-0141
http://www.netnw.com
--------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Westveer [mailto:jwest@netnw.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 2:33 PM
> To: Philip Hands; Steve McIntyre
> Cc: debian-cd@lists.debian.org
> Subject: RE: Slink Source images 
> 
> 
> RE: Slink "Source" Images
> > From: Philip Hands [mailto:phil@hands.com]
> > Subject: Re: Slink CD images 
> <snip>
> > Also, do the source CDs for different architectures actually end 
> > up different, 
> > or not ? --- it would be good if they were the same for all 
> architectures,
> > to save space for the mirrors.
> <snip>
> 
> The source images for each architecture are NOT the same...after all
> they have different sets programs, boot disks, etc...  eg:
> 
> i386:
> slink3.raw - 577,894
> slink4.raw - 505,064
> 
> sparc:
> slink3.raw - 616,064
> slink4.raw - 576,922
> 
> Admittedly, these images all have non-US included, but I
> imagine that they would be different without non-US.
>  
> Just a thought....
> 
> Jim Westveer <jwest@netnw.com>
> --------------------------------------------------
> The software required Win95 or better, 
> so I installed Linux.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Jim Westveer ------------- jwest@netnw.com 
> phone -------------------- 425-392-0141
> http://www.netnw.com
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> 


Reply to: