Re: Et voila! (was: Re: Slink not installable from CDs)
On 21-Oct-1998, Chris Waters <email@example.com> wrote:
> Michael Stone wrote:
> > Having each disk maintain a seperate package file has a few advantages,
> > including the fact that if you update a package on disk 3, you don't
> > need to throw out all your disk 1's. It would also make it easier to
> > combine a standard debian image for main and a custom non-free/non-us.
> Two other groups of people would benefit: those, like me, who would
> like to make their own archives of customized local packages on CDR,
> zip, jazz, syquest, etc., and ISVs (whether commercial or "open-source")
> who want to make their own CDs compatible with a Debian system.
> I'd say there's two main arguments for having separate package files on
> each CD. 1. it's more consistent with the FTP sites, and two: it's more
> flexible. If you insist that everything must be listed on the "first"
> CD, then you have no room for expansion.
You can have it both ways.
You can even have all packages files on the first CD as well
as duplicates on each CD.
With the proposed contents description file I
have posted to the list a few times now, you can even have
a packages file on every 3rd disk, or every 10th disk,
or multiple ones for each CD.
The technical solutions to these problems are relatively simple.
Why is everyone trying to make a decision on something that doesn't
need to be decided?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Tyson Dowd <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://tyse.net