On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:29:56AM +0200, Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no wrote:
> So,
> 
> it appears that not everyone was all that enthusiastic about the
> move to separate rescue floppy images, and admittedly, it's nice
> not to have to keep separate "recovery" media.
> 
> For the "main" install image we are already at two diskettes, so
> adding restore back in (together with chio and scsictl) would not
> make much of a difference.
> 
> The problem is with the trimmed-down diskette images (small and
> tiny).  All the three boot images build using the same ramdisk,
> but they do not necessarily have to.  Having different ramdisks
> is a minor complication documentation-wise, though.
> 
> It used to be that the "small" diskette image was built for 5.25"
> images, but that's not the case anymore.  The "tiny" image is
> built for 5.25", but has only 42K available at the moment.  It's
> also uncertain that it'll actually boot on a 4M system anymore;
> it just about barely did when I tried last time, and some stuff
> has been added since then, so I doubt it would be able to run on
> 4M systems at the moment.
> 
> Soo...  I'm currently leaning towards killing the "small" image,
> and make a new ramdisk image for the "tiny" image without
> sysinst, instead resurrecting the old script-based install for
> that ramdisk image.
> 
> How does this sit with folks?

I'd prefer to keep a single floppy set for install and recovery (sysinst
is handy to partition disks, and later you can just ^C and run restore).
If the purpose of the 'tiny' floppy is to run on small-memory systems,
switching back to a script-based install is certainly the rigth thing to do.

--
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
--