Re: Large data packages in the archive
I demand that Alexander E. Patrakov may or may not have written...
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> That already has a problem: How to define "large"? One way, which we
>> chose for now, is simply "everything > 50MB".
> Random thought: some architecture-dependent -dbg packages are also > 50 MB
> in size. Shouldn't they get some special treatment, too?
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES.
Necessity is the mother of invention.