On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Frans Pop <elen...@planet.nl> wrote: > (No need to CC me on replies.) > > On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Lee Winter wrote: >> Nah. The whole point is to support legacy systems that are capable of >> _running_ the newest software, but whose peripheral suite is not >> adequte to _bootstrap_ the larger images. is it your belief that the >> existing 2.4+backports would not work? > > No. The floppy method is NOT targeted only at legacy systems. If it cannot > exist as a full-featured installation method on the same level as other > installation methods, then there is no point in maintaining it. ... > I'm sorry, but this is the last post from me in this thread.
OK, be like that. ;-) Seriously, while I respect your decision to not pursue the suggestion, I would still appreciate understanding the reasons why you find the suggestion intolerable. The specific questions that appear to be unanswered are: -- What is the offensive defect in the floppy boot installation method if it results in a "full featured" system post-install? -- In there in fact an offensive defect if the floppy boot process produces the current installer operating over a current kernel? -- What does "on the same level" mean if something other than the current installer operating over a current kernel? > Real legacy systems can always install Sarge and upgrade too. Point taken. Laborious, but effective. > I appreciate your idea, but it's just not an approach that I at least would > ever want > to follow. OK. -- Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
