On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:28:26PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > Sorry, I saw them as being identical. I had no idea you had done something > special to make the disk images. yes the same program we use to make driver floppy images. it only exists buried in the boot-floppies source. > I was assuming that either the tarball or the images would be the same. > That is, that you could split the tarball into images, or cat the images > into a tarball. no, each image has a 512 byte header containing information about what floppy it is, creation date etc. dbootstrap uses this to ensure you feed it the right floppies in the right order, it also appears (at least for drivers, i cannot test base floppy installs) to require that the date embedded in the floppy image match the build date of the boot-floppies, that particular requirement would be inconvenient for basetarballs if they are not built during the b-f build. but someone simply needs to test it and see, my machine doesn't have a floppy drive. > >From what you say, that isn't the case, so under these conditions the > floppy images are the only thing that make any sense. > > Whichever format is used, the space is still consumed. That was the issue > I thought I was addressing, not the structure of the "pieces-parts". no you have been asking for BOTH, in which case twice as much space is used. > BTW, even with the format issues, I can split the tarball into floppy > images, move them to the cache under /target, cat them together and > then untar the base packages into the cache. From here, if I uderstood > your previous postings on this subject, things would progress naturally. yes you could do that, it would be horridly awkward and inconvenient. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpxSpAK264Xt.pgp
Description: PGP signature