Bug#186283: netinst cd problems (march24th sarge image)
On 25 Apr 2003, Martin [ISO-8859-1] Sjögren wrote:
> fre 2003-04-25 klockan 22.18 skrev Drew Scott Daniels:
> > Using today's image... choosing net at boot...
>
> If I may ask, why? That'll just get you an outdated net-1440 image. The
> default image, the cdrom image, is what's interesting on a
> businesscard/netinst image, that'll set up d-i from the CD and then do
> the rest from the net (actually, netinst will install base from the CD
> too)
>
Arbitrarily. Would you recomend that I start using cdrom for testing then?
> > > ons 2003-04-23 klockan 16.54 skrev Drew Scott Daniels:
> Sorry, it wasn't meant as a flame, I just happen to think that bochs is
> slow and that optimizing an installer for speed on bochs is low
> priority.
>
Np, I was trying to point out that it *might* be a problem for slower
computers too.
> > with 16mb of ram later... I was looking to this and noting that most of
> > the rest of the install was reasonably fast except for this part.
>
> That IS a problem. If nothing else, then for ramdisk size. Check df, the
> ramdisk is pretty big.
>
24MB iirc... Hmm this might be something that needs to be worked on or at
least looked at... Perhaps not until later as most modern systems have
32MB+. Out of curiousity, what did the old boot-floppies require? I seem
to recall it could occationally install on systems with 8MB of RAM.
> Any suggestion for improvement in anna's template description is
> welcome. I'm planning on expanding the choices in the list with whatever
> will be installed automatically (them all being default to yes of
> course), so a nitpick can remove the ones they don't like, and in any
> case, it'll be a lot more visible that things are actually going to be
> installed. However, I think that question is very scary for a first time
> user, and for anyone installing from CD or a decent net connection, the
> default *should be fine*. I.e. a nitpick should pick debconf priority
> low. Any ideas?
>
I usualy do pick priority low and I usualy end up happily picking the
defaults. I think it would be nice to have the ability to exclude certain
"downloads". It might also be nice to see why packages were selected
somehow to help the "experts".
Drew Daniels
Reply to: