On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 08:59:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I'm not propagating holding anything back. I'm just getting a rather
> frustrated with the current way decisions about changes are being made
> where size impact doesn't even seem to be a consideration anymore.
Hu? I do. And if someone could finish the isc dhcp -> udhcpc conversion,
we would save around 340KiB.
> In the past we have a few times held back adding new things until we'd
> found a way to first gain space somewhere else.
And on the other side you refused anything which would make it possible
to reduce the size of the kernel drastically.
> > How about we consider (carefully!) enabling certain features on a
> > per-architecture basis?
> I'd have no problems with that. IMO that's exactly the kind of design that
> should and needs to be done.
Some parts of busybox are Linux specific, but I fail to see something
really arch specific.
For now I know some things which could be done to reduce the size of the
initrd:
- Modularize glibc more. Currently the reduced version is over 800KiB. I
doubt that most of that it needed.
- Shrinking libcrypto (for the images which have ssh preinstalled). Or
replace it by dropbear.
- gpgv is also huge, it includes a second crypto implementation.
Bastian
--
Insults are effective only where emotion is present.
-- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
