* Mark or2uvma02@sneakemail.com [20051123 22:29]:
It's just as much work to avoid copying specific files as it is to copy-all and then delete them.
Saving some few MB when copying >2GB compared with the code complexity such a solution would have, is nothing anyone of us will implement. grml2hd should stay small, maintainable and therefor stable.
I agree, grml2hd should stay small, maintainable, and stable. The code complexity is greater now.
It's not a question of saving a few MB; it's a question of creating user systems that are not bogged down with complexities (extra services) they don't need which are also open for hacker attack.
Exactly therefor the script 'remove-packages-server' exists and is integrated into grml2hd. The modularity allows to run remove-packages-server even on the harddisk installation, absolutely independent from grml2hd.
I don't see how copy-some is more complex than delete-some. They are equivalent.
No.
Using the existing, working package management is less complex and easier to mantain than rewriting a 'cp -a /from /to' to exclude specific files.
Sure, it's easier to do copy-all; but the script also does delete-some after that. If it just did copy-some, it would not need delete-some. So it saves a step and reduces complexity.
No, the copy-some would add complexity. If you don't believe me just read the source.
I did not get an impression of stability from the delete-some step. There were tons of errors and warnings, confusing questions, etc. I went over that in a prior message.
As long as it does not fail it's not an error but a warning. Warnings are kind of normal behaviour. They just let you know that there *might* be something which *might* lead into problems ("I expected foo but received bar"). As long as it does not fail - therefor interrupts - it's not a problem at all. If you are not used to see warnings, you either aren't used to Debian or your Distro hides such stuff from you.
regards, -mika-