Re: Official Debian 2.0 CD master images
Andreas Jellinghaus <aj@dungeon.inka.de> writes:
> Is anyone creaeting images at all ? There are lots of open questions.
Yes, I have used your Makefile-based thingy and it worked well with a
few small modifications. You idea of using hard links was very clever
and fast, IMHO.
> Becuase i didn't like the debian-cd shell scripts, i rewrote them and
> improved them to a Makefile.
>
> There are still several open questions :
> - who is going to create the official images ?
Hmm, perhaps the person that wrote the script to make them? :-)
> - what should be on the official images (only main ? also contrib ?
> project/ ? indices/ ? ...)
main, contrib (sources, binary, and disks), tools at least. Binary
should include binary-i386 and binary-all.
> - european official images with non-US ?
That is a good idea, but I don't think we have to worry about it yet.
> - how to split the stuff to cdroms ?
Your scripts are a good way of doing it. However, dselect ought to
understand this. Otherwise, we will have lots of confused users.
> main/source doesn't fit on one cdrom. i move source/x11 to third
> cdrom. binaries don't fit on one cdrom. main does, but main+contrib
> will probably not. debian want's to be a base for value added
> distributions. installing from several cdroms is a must for
this.e
Agreed.
> - neither dselect nor apt can handle installing from two cdroms with one
> cd drive.
BIG PROBLEM!
> - with 3 cdroms the third image will be nearly empty.
That's OK. We can put 3000x4000 BMPs of our logo on there or
something <g>
> - i can do bootable cdroms for i386. but i have no clue about other
> architectures (how to they boot at all ?).
Let the people in charge of the other archs handle this, I think. It
is too much for a single person to keep track of how every arch boots.
> - debian ftp mirror and official cd image distribution :
> only ftp ? anonymous rsync site would be great !
ooo....anonymous rsync... I like it!
> - either apt or autoupdate. i propose apt.
apt still has some nasty bugs that generaly require editing
/etc/apt/sources.list. While it is OK for someone like me, it is very
unfriendly for a new user. It also deals poorly with
frequently-occuring strangeness, such as when a file is listed in
Packages but is not present in the archive. Don't get me wrong, apt
has a lot of promise, but it's still beta-quality.
> - bootdisks and apt could both need improvements too IMO.
I tried a fresh 2.0 installation the other day and I thought thtat the
boot disks were quite AWESOME. They look snazzy, they're fast, and
they WORK.
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix programming jgoerzen@complete.org |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Visit the Air Capitol Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: