Re: Debian 2.0 install
Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > cdrom Install from a CD-ROM.
> > nfs Install from an NFS server (not yet mounted).
> > harddisk Install from a hard disk partition (not yet mounted).
> > mounted Install from a filesystem which is already mounted.
> > ftp Install using ftp.
> > http Install using http:, ftp:, and file: URLs.
> Last I heard these ones where really quite bad and had problems with
> pre-depends and others. Other than the 'not yet mounted' stuff apt largely
> replaces all of them -- there are some features a very small number of
> people need that only those methods provide but that is fairly rare.
Yes, well, you would say that, wouldn't you? Let's not get carried
away with `apt' fervour, please. If there are known bugs or
obsolescence with these methods fine, but purging them on the basis
that the apt author ``has heard'' that they are bad and have problems
and that features which they provide are (in the apt authors opinion)
``rarely needed'' strikes me as a stunningly bad idea.
Remove them from the default choice list, if the problem is user
confusion, by all means, but they should be available.
"Never trust trucks"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org