Re: MSDOS name conversion
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:51:00 -0500 , "brian (b.c.) white" <bcwhite@bnr.ca> said:
> Yes, I could change dftp, but I don't see why it is necessary to
> split the packages in the standard tree. If somebody is able to go
It saves disk space and (perhaps) makes for more reliable ftp
transfers.
> through all the steps necessary to create the original base disks,
> they can easiy run "split" on their packages.
They could but wouldn't installation be easier if they didn't have to?
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:55:00 -0500 , "brian (b.c.) white" <bcwhite@bnr.ca> said:
>> The question is whether there is any reason why we shouldn't split
>> the packages in the main area too, and I haven't heard a really
>> good reason why not ...
> How about plain old readability and useability? Debian is already
> full of files! I'd rather this was not increased needlessly.
I don't think this is a legitimate concern. I guess when you say
"Debian", you mean the ftp site. Increasing the number of files there
is no big deal. It doesn't affect the users' machines except at
installation time (and then transparently).
> Having multiple files per package will just be confusing to anyone
> accessing the ftp site directly.
Not if the files are properly named.
> I don't see the point in punishing the general user just so someone
> can occasionally load packages onto a floppy disk.
Punishing??? :-))) This is a little dramatic, don't you think?
> My suggestion: Include a "split" program in the msdos archive and a
> README about how to use it.
This would work but it makes life more complicated for the user. They
have find the tool and then figure out how to use it. If the files
are split for them already, they just proceed normally.
--Mike
Reply to: