Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:20:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@sohara.org> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 12.1 i386 CD #1 image size not compatible with intended medium standard size Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2006160801150.15855@mail2.nber.org> In-Reply-To: <20200616115127.53797f2bdea77fcbe032b4bf@sohara.org> References: <20200616122728.7bd2df41.freebsd@edvax.de> <20200616115127.53797f2bdea77fcbe032b4bf@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:27:28 +0200 > Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: ...> >> When will FreeBSD supply a CD image file that can actually be >> used with normal CD media again without requiring a workaround >> and possibly breaking the result? > > Shortly after someone figures out how to and submits an acceptable > patch - you may be the first to have been inconvenienced by this, it's been > a long time since I used a CD. > That is rather disengenuous. Is there any chance a patch that removed some packageswould be accepted? Hasn't the decision already been made that there is no problem? I am unclear on FreeBSD governance, but I don't see any mention of this as a problem on https://wiki.freebsd.org/IdeasPage which does suggest that a patch is not desired. Clearly the issue was known when the ISO was prepared. There must have been arguments for why it was better to go over the portable limit on ISO size than to drop some packages. Without knowing what those arguments were, it would be a waste of his time for Polytopon to pick his least favorite packages to delete. Is there a relevant mailing list where this was discussed? Daniel Feenberg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2006160801150.15855>