On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:12:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:05:53PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > Am 2006-07-28 12:43:55, schrieb John Goerzen: > > > > > I like the fact that a base Debian install is only 100MB. Most of > > > Debian's competitors are 10 times that. > > > > Ist now over 200 MByte... > > No. I've been doing a ton of etch installs with cdebootstrap lately, > and it's still just under 100MB. 97 or so if memory serves.
Yes, but that doesn't include things like bootloaders and kernels, and things like filesystem support tools. The reason is rather obvious; (c)debootstrap cannot predict which kernel image will be necessary (or if any will be necessary at all), nor can it predict which filesystem will be used (it might be NFS, in which case you don't need an fsck but do need nfs support packages) Given that a kernel image these days takes up about 50M already, and given that most filesystem support tools require a few library packages as well (which results in more megs), it's probably well over 100M, and 200 would not seem unlikely. > A ton better than the RHEL/CentOS situation, where the stripped-down > "server" install is over 1GB. That, of course, is still true. And then you haven't even looked at Solaris (as shipped by Sun), which needs a few gigabytes. -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
