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

Re: Dual layer DVD

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>[ Sent to both -release and -cd; please respect the reply-to: -cd ]


>There's been quite a lot of discussion lately about releasing sarge on
>dual-layer DVD; it's clearly attractive for CD/DVD vendors to be able
>to sell one disc that covers Debian, and for the end user it's much
>easier to boot and install from a single disc with no
>swapping/flipping needed.
>I've been looking up specs for this, in particular sizes. According to
>http://www.disctronics.co.uk/technology/dvdrom/dvdrom_specs.htm and
>various other pages google can find:
>  a single-sided single-layer DVD (aka DVD-5) holds 4.7e+9 bytes
>  a single-sided dual-layer DVD (aka DVD-9) holds 8.5e+9 bytes

I've created a set of (what I expected to be) single DVD-sized images
for each architecture. I'm worried:

alpha/alpha-1 8471242752 bytes
arm/arm-1 7612305408 bytes
hppa/hppa-1 8148635648 bytes
i386/i386-1 8735232000 bytes
ia64/ia64-1 9016291328 bytes
m68k/m68k-1 8810422272 bytes
mips/mips-1 7869827072 bytes
mipsel/mipsel-1 7720431616 bytes
powerpc/powerpc-1 10134548480 bytes
powerpc/powerpc-2 355729408 bytes
s390/s390-1 8079792128 bytes
sparc/sparc-1 8143155200 bytes
src/src-1 9058893824 bytes

Some of the architectures may fit fine on DL DVD (alpha, arm, mips,
mipsel, s390, sparc), but i386 is looking even bigger than manty's
set and src is much bigger again. m68k, ia64 and powerpc (over 10G!)
are really going to have problems if we care about this.

Recent experience on the lists suggests that the most common
architectures for DVDs are i386 and powerpc. Both of these are going
to need significant pruning at the moment if we care about a
single-disc install. At the moment, ppc may not even fit on 2 DVDs!

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: