From owner-cvs-lib Fri May 8 06:31:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from daemon@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA21785 for cvs-lib-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:31:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-lib) Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA21740; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:31:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA18001; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:27:39 +1000 Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 23:27:39 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199805081327.XAA18001@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libftpio ftpio.c Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Which brings me to another question - is it really necessary to split >> up the distribution into 240 kB fragments? 720 kB or 1440 kB fragments >> I could understand, but 240 kB? And for a network or CD installation, >> it isn't really necessary to split it up at all, is it? 235K. >No, not really, not anymore anyway. I'd be just as happy to see us go >to a larger fragment size if it doesn't screw up the floppy folk too >much (don't forget - they need to stick the foo.inf file on the very >first floppy, so it can't be exactly 1.44MB in size or even relatively >close given what's taken for FS overhead). As much as I'd like to Most floppies have size 1200K :-). 235K was carefully chosen for packing either 5 fragments on a 1200K floppy of 6 on a 1440K floppy, at least in tar format. Bruce