[Grml] removal of "buffer" command? alternatives?

Christian Hofstaedtler ch at grml.org
Wed Dec 28 16:24:12 CET 2011

* Frank Terbeck <ft at grml.org> [111228 13:43]:
> And finally: I am not a fan of the grml96 ISOs and I was only realising
> that they existed after the release. Here is why I don't like them: The
> cleaned up package list leaves us with huge amounts of free space on a
> standard blank CD. It would be trivial to say "What, you'd like afio
> back? Well. No problem. Readded it. Get tomorrows daily image."
> Now there is a new artificial limit: If we add a lot of new packages,
> then grml96 may overflow. And if that limits what we'd include in our
> images, that would be *quite* unfortunate to say the least.

I can see us releasing a single ISO, with a 32bit userland and
kernels for 64bit and 32bit for maybe the next or next-next release.
Ulrich is pushing hard for this, and (while I don't necessarily like
it) I think that's the correct way forward for the time being
(read: as long as i386 still lives).

> I realise, that grml96 may contain a completely different set of
> packages then the single-arch package. But I wouldn't want to diverge
> too much, because it would lead to confusion and pain. And it's trivial
> to create a bootable medium with both architectures using, say,
> grml2usb.

(As others have pointed out, grml96 is basically the result of
a grml2usb/grml2iso call.)


christian hofstaedtler

More information about the Grml mailing list