On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems
> > about half the total size of a vim-tiny today.
> Okay, so that's not "about the same". Stefano? If the above numbers are
If this is some kind of insinuation, ... well, I'm kind of pissed-off by
it. I never used the expression "about the same". Joey forwarded a post
of mine containing the verbatim words:
The installed-size of it and of vim-common are as I anticipated (776
+ 232 on i386);
[ vim-common is now some Kb smaller, but this is not relevant here ]
In the very same post Joey correctly added:
It's now only marginally larger than nvi
Thus, no one of the proposer speaked of something "about the same".
> correct, then the best case is a (696+200-560)==336K increase. Last I
> heard, the CD builders considered that a non-trivial amount of space. Or
> am I confusing the boot image with base?
I asked Joey, as one of the installer maintainer, and for him the size
increase is not a problem. If it is a problem for the CD builders, they
can speak in this thread. If it is not a problem for these people, why
is it a problem for you?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature