On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems > > about half the total size of a vim-tiny today. > Okay, so that's not "about the same". Stefano? If the above numbers are
If this is some kind of insinuation, ... well, I'm kind of pissed-off by it. I never used the expression "about the same". Joey forwarded a post of mine containing the verbatim words: The installed-size of it and of vim-common are as I anticipated (776 + 232 on i386); [ vim-common is now some Kb smaller, but this is not relevant here ] In the very same post Joey correctly added: It's now only marginally larger than nvi Thus, no one of the proposer speaked of something "about the same". > correct, then the best case is a (696+200-560)==336K increase. Last I > heard, the CD builders considered that a non-trivial amount of space. Or > am I confusing the boot image with base? I asked Joey, as one of the installer maintainer, and for him the size increase is not a problem. If it is a problem for the CD builders, they can speak in this thread. If it is not a problem for these people, why is it a problem for you? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature