Philip Charles wrote:
> [ snipped ]
Yes, but this does *not* answer my question at all:
kernel-image-* packages do not belong to any task, are any of them more
popular than tetex-bin? I believe they are not, but the only data I
have to backup such statement is the popularity-contest data from th
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Yes, but this does *not* answer my question at all:
>
> kernel-image-* packages do not belong to any task, are any of them more
> popular than tetex-bin? I believe they are not, but the only data I
> have to backup such statement is the popularity-conte
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Yes, but this does *not* answer my question at all:
> >
> > kernel-image-* packages do not belong to any task, are any of them more
> > popular than tetex-bin? I believe they are not, but the only data I
What about putting kernel-source-2.4.18 and kernel-source-2.2.20 in CD #1
instead of the individual kernel-image-* packages? This would leave a
lot of room for TeX and maybe i18n as well.
(Currently kernel-source-2.4.18 is in CD #6, according to the latest
jigdo file I have).
The bad thing about
I have been convinced.
What kernel images, packages, source, patches do we want on CD1?
At the moment we have, rough list. Resubmitted in case you have deleated
it. What no source!
Phil.
Package: kernel-image-2.2.20
Package: kernel-image-2.2.20-compact
Package: kernel-image-2.2.20-idepci
Pac
Hi,
I found some 'duplicates' in the 1st debian CD:
emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_i386.deb - ~10MB
emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb - ~9MB
emacs21_21.2-1_i386.deb - ~12MB
I understand - emacs is a very goot thing, but I think 3 different versions
of emacs in the1st CD is a luxury. Maybe only one, newest versi
On May 24, Philip Charles wrote:
> I have been convinced.
>
> What kernel images, packages, source, patches do we want on CD1?
>
> At the moment we have, rough list. Resubmitted in case you have deleated
> it. What no source!
Certainly all the 2.4.16 packages could go; there's no point in hav
We can drop 2.4.16 since we have 2.4.18 (I think this is already done).
If we add kernel-source-2.4.18 and kernel-source-2.2.20, these are the
popularities in decreasing order:
kernel-image-2.2.20 418
kernel-source-2.4.18 150
-- we could cut here
Title: Re: About the improving of 1st debian CD (there are some 'duplicates', etc.)
Le Fri, May 24, 2002 at 01:53:23PM +0100, Mantas K. écrivait:
> we remove some 'duplicates' (like 3 versions of emacs) and maybe some not
> very useful for beginners packages (like erlang_8.0-4_i386.deb -
Same list adding pcmcia-source:
kernel-image-2.2.20 418
kernel-source-2.4.18 150
pcmcia-source 81
kernel-image-2.4.18-686 29
kernel-source-2.2.20 28
kernel-image-2.4.18-k7
Title: Re: What kernel stuff on CD1? Was Still no TeX in CD#1
Le Fri, May 24, 2002 at 11:11:13PM +1200, Philip Charles écrivait:
> What kernel images, packages, source, patches do we want on CD1?
Those we already have.
Check tasks/exclude-woody : we're excluding kernel-image-2.4.16-*.
Michael Knoop wrote:
> I had exactly the same problem. When I ran "apt-get --simulate install
> dpkg apt debconf" it showed problem packages in square brackets after
> packages it was "installing". Using this information, and stumbling around
> for awhile, I finally found that running "apt-get
Hi again,
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Take care, some packages may be there because they are part of a task.
>Double check that before deciding to exclude a package from CD1.
I know, but we can split task between 1st and 2nd CD or remove for example
*-dev packages from task an
13 matches
Mail list logo
