Re: Still no base tarball
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:28:26PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >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
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER asked for both. I DO need
at least one of these options.
> > 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.
Floppy installs are "horridly awkward and incovenenient" already, so
what's your point?
My point was, is, and will be in the future, that the floppy only base
install still needs to be supported. Either a tarball or a set of floppy
images are adequate to the task. You only need pick one, and I think that
everyone knows which one is the more desirable now, so can we stop kicking
and screaming about things that are not at issue?
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/