Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:18:35PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:01:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> >> Then, Disk 1 (which is very full-featured, after all) can be
>> >> passed out where ever and to who ever, without any fear of
>> >> possible problems.
>> >
>> > Hard-coding a list of "unacceptable" packages into the CD building scripts
>> > is a waste of time, because the location of a package on a CD set is
>> > primarily determined by its importance to the system and by its popularity.
>> > Most of these packages are in danger of ending up on the first CD any time
>> > soon -- and, if they were, why should we be overriding the overwhelming
>> > preferences expressed by our users just to pander to the childish
>> > sensibilities of people who *aren't* our users?
>>
>> Even worse with dvd images where nearly everything is on disc1.
>
> Are you kidding ? disc 2 is almost as big as disc 1. And with 2 discs,
> you get no source, this is ridiculous. We should take the advantage of
> the space available on a DVD to provide binary AND source of the
> packages we put on a DVD.
>
> Mike
You have substantially more on the first dvd than the first cd. Having
it on the second dvd would be like moving it to the 6th or 7th
cd. Since ordering is done by popcon and due to all this talk hot-babe
probably ends up high enough to be on the first dvd.
MfG
Goswin
