On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 10:30, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2004 09:57:13 -0400, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > cd/dvd images of extras are dramatically simpler, though b/c they don't > > have to boot and be in order. > > don't have to be in order? Are we saying that we are going to be > happy with the idea that if extras spans 5 cd images while core spans > 1... that its perfectly okay that users trying to use those 5 cd extra > images will have to swap in those 5 cd images somewhat randomly to > fill the dependancy chain? I thought part of the point of ordering > images was to prevent the extra hassle of having to repeatedly go > between cd1 and cd3 over and over again during the install process. > Why would this be any different for Extras? You could group by the items themselves not by the likelihood of the item being installed. The cds, right now, must be ordered based on the likelihood of certain things being installed in a normal install. But with separate extra cds you could just group them based on similarity of the item. -sv
