From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 16 12:20:52 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD8B3368AF for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:20:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [198.71.6.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49mS3653v6z3bG9 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:20:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [198.71.6.79]) by mail2.nber.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05GCKjcO048304 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:20:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:20:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" cc: Polytropon , FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: FreeBSD 12.1 i386 CD #1 image size not compatible with intended medium standard size In-Reply-To: <20200616115127.53797f2bdea77fcbe032b4bf@sohara.org> Message-ID: References: <20200616122728.7bd2df41.freebsd@edvax.de> <20200616115127.53797f2bdea77fcbe032b4bf@sohara.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (BSF 287 2018-06-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 1 X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: not scanned X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: Clean, 1970/01/01 00:00:00 X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security 8.0 for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.1.721, bases: 2020/06/16 03:31:00 #10802899 X-KLMS-AntiVirus-Status: Clean, skipped X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49mS3653v6z3bG9 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of feenberg@nber.org designates 198.71.6.79 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=feenberg@nber.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.55 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.02)[-1.021]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[198.71.6.79:from]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[nber.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.986]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[198.71.6.79:from]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.04)[-1.042]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:26287, ipnet:198.71.6.0/23, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:20:52 -0000 On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:27:28 +0200 > Polytropon wrote: ...> >> When will FreeBSD supply a CD image file that can actually be >> used with normal CD media again without requiring a workaround >> and possibly breaking the result? > > Shortly after someone figures out how to and submits an acceptable > patch - you may be the first to have been inconvenienced by this, it's been > a long time since I used a CD. > That is rather disengenuous. Is there any chance a patch that removed some packageswould be accepted? Hasn't the decision already been made that there is no problem? I am unclear on FreeBSD governance, but I don't see any mention of this as a problem on https://wiki.freebsd.org/IdeasPage which does suggest that a patch is not desired. Clearly the issue was known when the ISO was prepared. There must have been arguments for why it was better to go over the portable limit on ISO size than to drop some packages. Without knowing what those arguments were, it would be a waste of his time for Polytopon to pick his least favorite packages to delete. Is there a relevant mailing list where this was discussed? Daniel Feenberg