Re: why one rescue & boot disk? (was Re: An 'ae' testimony)
Followups to debian-boot@lists.debian.org. All of this talk about the
Debian boot system is IMHO just "debating society" stuff. I have seen
very few well thought-out, practical suggestions in this thread.
>>>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
Joey> Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Two seperate functions. Why are we trying to cram two seperate
>> functions into one?
Joey> Good question. If we're getting very cramped (I'm sure we are
Joey> :-), it might be time to think about splitting the two. I can
Joey> see one very big advantage to using the same disk for two thing
Joey> though. It means that a new user, who has just installed debian,
Joey> magically has a rescue disk, without any extra work. If making a
Joey> rescue disk was an additional step, most newbies wouldn't do it.
There is absolutely no way, in my mind, that we can remove stuff like
an editor from the installation disk. Can you imagine the flak we'd
get?
The point is that we are talking about the rootdisk. Obviously, even
just for installation (not rescue functions), a local editor is
required (i.e., for editing fstab, or lilo.conf).
The solution in my mind is to allow for the base system to be
supplemented by a fatter base system, for people installing from
media which don't have the tight constraints of floppies (i.e., TFTP,
CDROM, ZIP, harddisk).
Joey> (It may also mean less work by the boot floppies guys. Or not -
Joey> if we used say, Tom's Root Boot as our rescue disk, we wouldn't
Joey> have to maintain all that stuff and could devote more time to
Joey> the basic install. I've heard very good things about Tomsrtbt.)
Oh, I love Tom's Boot Disks -- they do really rock. I use and suggest
them all the time.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: