[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why is sarge "minimal" intall so huge compared to woody?



Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-02-11 04:29:48, schrieb Joao Clemente:


Hi Justin and people interested in this report.
I just "minimally installed" a fresh woody and a fresh sarge on vmware machines and using the same options as much as possible.

The results are:
woody: 152 MB, 105 packages installed (100 packages selected)


??? You mean the Base-Install ???
It is for woody 102 packages with 64 MBytes
on a ext3 filesystem with blocks of 2 kBytes


Hum? What is 64MB? 102 packages is almost the same as the number I reported, but 64 MB is way off the 152 MB my woody occupies (and I installed in a ext3 partition also, dunno the block size)


sarge: 372 MB, 231 packages installed (226 packages selected)


With the base of Sarge I do nt know the Packages,
but there are 190 MByte.


Once again, what is 190 MByte?


Repeting what I said on my 1rst post, I wonder why such a big minimal install ...
As a curiosity, /usr of sarge takes 223 MB and in woody takes 50 MB!


...which mean, I cant upgrade to SARGE, because
my 500 MByte partitions are too small.


And once again, I cannot understand your reasoning here.... I just said above that sarge takes 372 MB TOTAL, you say a 500 MByte partition is too small for your upgrade for sarge? I must be missing something here...

Joao Clemente



Reply to: