Re: Still no base tarball
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:29:32PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>>
>> > nobody has yet provided a convincing argument for putting the
>> > tarball on the CDs.
> ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^
>
>see that says **tarball**
>
>it does NOT say *floppy images*
>
>
>> So I'd say about 30% of machines I see need the whole base install done
>> from floppies. Now, I agree that I am completely able to download the
>> tarball and split it up onto floppies, but that is not true of everyone,
>> and folks are going to be pretty disapointed if they buy a CD and find
>> there isn't enough there to install the base system on their piece-of-junk
>> machine.
>
>as i said in my post i don't have a problem including the base tarball
>floppy images on the CD, what i have a problem with, and what nobody,
>including you, has provided ANY rational for is providing the base
>***TARBALL*** on the CDs.
>
>if your box can't read a CD it can't read a basedebs.tgz on the CD now
>can it?
The only thing is it may violate POLA for the typical sysadmin. If they
get used to basedebs installs without CD, when they DO use the CD, it'd be
least astonishing to find it somewhere on the CD. The CDs already have
POLA cruft: when's the last time FIPS had a sane use? AFAICT, it actually
pukes on VFAT and NTFS. But I doubt that a FIPS-less CD would be accepted
without some serious pain and suffering. Is it that hard to include
basedebs.tgz for similar purposes? More importantly, isn't the point of a
CD install to get a system up that can spawn another installation? How
can you do that without basedebs.tgz?
>
--
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: