David Laight wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:18:01AM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > Apparently, it now asks for the files sets first?
> 
> Yes - because the default sizes for the partitions ought to depend
> on which sets are requested.
> 
Really?  Is there some new way of determining, without accessing the 
network and downloading and unpacking the file, what the resulting 
size of the set will be?  And a need to tightly fit a partition to 
the size of a particular set, without room for future expansion?

Or are you just ignoring the recommendations you sought over in the 
current-users list about the partition layout?

Folks seemed pretty sure that what they wanted is usage-based, not 
set-based, partition organization.  That's why all of the responses
said there was no need for the base+X menu choice.


> Maybe it would make sense to locate the sets right at the start.
> 
With no network connection?

What I'd *LIKE* to see, is the preparation phase finished, and then 
ask where to locate the sets, and then list the sets available at 
that site, and select from that list.


> > (And doesn't come close to matching INSTALL.txt.)
> 
> The documentation will be way out of date!
> and getting further away :-)
> 
Woah, Nelly!  Are you saying you are writing code without updating 
the documentation?  How does anybody know what's going on?  Heck, 
how do you know whether what you are doing is easy to explain to 
everybody else, until you've carefully described the process?


> > Where in the code should I look for these changes?
> 
> Somewhere under my rototiller, but mind your fingers.
> 
That's a very unfriendly remark.  I was looking for a file reference.
-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32