Hello,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Frans Pop]
>> The only reason I see to keep the cache is when some packages (after
>> base-installer) fail to install. If we want to cover that case it should
>> be detected automatically by testing the result of tasksel [1]
On Sunday 20 June 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [1] Checking installation of packages using apt-install is much
> > harder to do as there are many different calls and failure may be
> > expected in some cases. It also gains much less as their total size
> > is much less.
>
> I believe it wou
[Frans Pop]
> The only reason I see to keep the cache is when some packages (after
> base-installer) fail to install. If we want to cover that case it should
> be detected automatically by testing the result of tasksel [1]. The final
> cleanup could be omitted in that case.
Sound like a good i
On Sunday 20 June 2010, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Maybe, for more corner cases where keepign the cache would be
> good, could we have a low priority option (or a preseed-only choice)
> to *not* clean the cache?
I don't think it has anything to do with user choice or preseeding. Making
this a deb
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> The main reason IIRC is that leaving the packages makes it unnecessary to
> download them again if part of e.g. tasksel fails for whatever reason and
> the user has to install some packages manually (after ignoring that
> error - which is a real option a
On Sunday 20 June 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> Any disk space savings are IMO illusionary as the cache will fill up
> again anyway during later updates and any system that does not have
> sufficient disk space to hold a decent package cache will also have
> serious problems during later stable updates.
On Sunday 20 June 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> The main reason IIRC is that leaving the packages makes it unnecessary
> to download them again if part of e.g. tasksel fails for whatever reason
> and the user has to install some packages manually [...].
Note that the above argument is only really valid
On Saturday 19 June 2010, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I see no reason for leaving .deb files in /var/cache/apt/archives on a
> fresh installation, so let's run apt-get clean before reboot.
This has been suggested and discussed before. IIRC (but I may be mistaken)
Joey has always been against it.
T
[Martin Michlmayr]
> I've done it after you get the "Installation complete" message.
> Can you confirm that this is late enough?
Yes. The last Debian Edu script is at 13debian-edu-profile-udeb
before the installation complete message. The LTSP build is done in
its own udeb between pkgsel and fin
* Petter Reinholdtsen [2010-06-19 19:42]:
> See my comment in #586434. If it is done, please make sure it is done
> as late as possible. Doing it late in finish-install.d should not as
> far as I can see affect the Debian Edu installation, while doing it
> earlier will.
I've done it after you g
[Martin Michlmayr]
> I see no reason for leaving .deb files in /var/cache/apt/archives on
> a fresh installation, so let's run apt-get clean before reboot.
>
> OK to apply?
See my comment in #586434. If it is done, please make sure it is done
as late as possible. Doing it late in finish-install
Hello Martin,
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Package: finish-install
> Version: 2.23
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> I see no reason for leaving .deb files in /var/cache/apt/archives on a
> fresh installation, so let's run apt-get clean before reboot.
>
> OK to
Package: finish-install
Version: 2.23
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
I see no reason for leaving .deb files in /var/cache/apt/archives on a
fresh installation, so let's run apt-get clean before reboot.
OK to apply?
Index: finish-install.d/30cleanup
==
13 matches
Mail list logo
