Re: Still no base tarball

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:

    Adam> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
    >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:14:55AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
    >> > Adding basedebs.tgz to CD#1 would be a flagrant waste of
    >> space.
    >> 
    >> Not much more so than having base2_2.tgz,
    >> images-1.20/base-*.bin, and images-1.44/base-*.bin, as well as
    >> the debs themselves, though.

    Adam> Well, sure, but in another way.  With Potato install, we
    Adam> didn't have the technology to take CD#1 and "bootstrap" a
    Adam> base system into place.

    Adam> Now we do have that technology...

If people eventually decide that including the base tgz on the CD
takes up too much space, perhaps a shell script to generate it on any
UNix system with tar and gzip could be included.

I'm not sure whether including the base tarfile is a good idea or not.
It seems it would be useful if you needed to do installs onto a lot of
machines in an environment where you had no UNix machines and no
machines you wanted to be Unix machines that had a CD.  You could for
example export the CD via Windows file sharing, copy the tarfile on
the hard disks of the machines you wanted to install Unix on, and then
boot those machines using floppies.  If this is the only situation
when you want the tarfile on the CD, then it's not worth it IMHO.

Probably though the easiest way for those who want the base tarfile on
the CD to make their point is to explain the situations in which it
would be useful.