On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 06:12:46PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >On 10/05/2017 05:55 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> > On second thought, I would actually recommended to revert this change >> > for all architectures. Size isn't so much a constraint anymore these >> > days, you reduce the binary by about 200k. I don't think this is worth >> > the risk of breaking something as fundemantal as busybox. >> >> Please exclude armel, which has size limitation on initrd of d-i [0]. >Hmm, ok. Is that currently actually a concern? If I'm seeing that correctly, >the "-Os" here only saved us around 200k. Does that already make a difference >on armel?
Massively so, yes. Lots of the armel platforms that people care about have very limited space for kernel and initramfs. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer
