Re: Re: MSDOS name conversion
In article <"8923 Tue Feb 13 17:33:10 1996"@bnr.ca> "behan (b.) webster" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Thanks for this comparision !
> The current system with large files for each package:
> - fewer files (less adminstrative overhead)
> - dpkg/dselect/dftp don't need to change (not that they aren't going to
> change anyways for other reasons)
> - for floppy users, depending on the split/splice program and
> capabilities of the machine you're installing debian on, you can
> automatically split a file optimally onto a set of disks and then
> automatically splice them together at the other end. (e.g., using
> DOS utils like: pkzip, arj, slice)
and GNU tar
> - floppy users must use a split/splice program
> - depending on the split/splice program and capabilities of the machine
> you're installing debian on, you must manually put the files back
> together again. (e.g., using UNIX split/cp/cat)
> - people with bad phone lines won't have to keep downloading the same big
> file if they have errors.
ftp REGET (at least used by the mirror programme) should handle
this. Or did you think of another mechanism for transferring files
over phone lines ? (Do the ftp method and dftp use REGET ?)
> Split every package into 1.44M (1.2M) pieces:
> - can recover from ftp/sz crashes easier
> - can fit files onto floppies without the aid of a split/slice program
> - should they split into 1.44M chunks or 1.2M chunks?
Currently there are only 1.44M base disk, so we already require a
1.44M fd drive.
> - still have to manually copy each file onto the disk (several DOS based
> split programs will do it for you: pkzip, arj, slice...)
> - 2-4 times the number of files. (administrative overhead)
> - changes to dpkg, dselect and dftp
> - find all parts of package by either the UNIX or DOS filename
> - make sure all parts are present
> - check each part against it's own MD5sum
> - More disk space is used (each file must have it's own header and has
> 1-4k of dead space at the end depending on block/inode size)
> (granted, this is mostly negligible)
> I wouldn't call it "a *lot* worse". I'd just call the current system
> inconvenient for floppy users and people with bad phone lines. (did I miss
A full install via floppy is inconvenient anyway.
But I learned that it can make sense to update the system via floppy.
(And third party software might be distributed splitted on several
floppies, so we still need the ftp methods ability to concatenate
splitted debian packages. Although this doesn't say us how we should
organize the debian tree.)
> All I know is that I'm sure glad I don't have to maintain my debian system
> from floppy!
Me too :-)
Sven Rudolph <email@example.com> ; WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/