On Mon November 13 2006 12:23, anonymous wrote: > I still have not received a definitive reply to my question as yet. > Which, to repeat was: > > " I found out that I would need to download 18 CDs: 15 regular and 3 > for the update. > I would like to know whether all these CDs have binary files or are > these also include CDs > with sources and documentation. If so, which ones of them?"
Sorry I can't answer that question well. It's been a while since I looked at the debian install cd's. I can tell you that the packages are placed on the cd's first by need (kernel's etc) and then popularity. When I installed from cd I always grabbed the first two cd's (three if I had time) and that took care of most of what I used. I also had deb sources in my /etc/apt/sources.list and anything I wanted to install that wasn't on my cd's would get installed over the net although in 80% of the cases I already had what was needed. The debian archive has become much larger lately though (something like 18000 packages) so it has become somewhat harder to manage without a network connection. I do my downloading now on one machine and copy the contents of /var/cache/apt/archives to another computer if need be (be sure not to delete deb's after download if you go this route). > Having used Redhat and Slackware before which just use 4 CDs each for > the boot and > packages and a couple more for the documentation and sources, it is > difficult for me to take > 15 CDs for the installation of packages alone. > IF this *is* really the case, there should be some good reason for > this: Does debian offer a > lot of packages choices? Lot more than does either slackware or redhat > so as to need this > much number of CDs? I don't use cd's anymore. I have 2 DVD's for sarge and 3 for etch. After the initial install I proceed with X, KDE and Gnome. With sarge I use a handfull of packages from DVD 2. Once I'm done I have 1800 packages installed, so there are a lot of packages in debian, many you will never have time to get too, if they even interest you.. :) > OR the .deb packages are not as much efficient and do not use good > compression to squeeze them all in a fewer CDs? I'm not sure what .deb packages are made of, but I'm pretty sure they are at least on par with .rpm. > > That said, a list of which CDs contain which packages would still be > > useful. It is a good idea. I don't know if it exists (yet). Not a very authoritative answer but that's how I see it.. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
