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