On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:14:35PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > I've tested what would be the size saving when building glibc with -Os: > > Huh, I think I've checked whether -Os helped pretty much everything in > d-i, but never thought to try libc. Good idea, and this space savings > would in fact be useful; both because we're bursting at the seams of > some of the smaller CD images, and because it would help keep d-i > running in 32 mb of memory
As you can see in the other mail, it seems to cause some breakage with nptl and librt. I'm not sure if d-i needs threading at all (or even what librt is ;). Is that an issue for libc-udeb ? If it is, perhaps we could patch nptl/librt code to add the proper -O option to override previous -Os. I think this could be accepted in upstream. > (assuming that the uncompressed sizes, which > you didn't show, arn't suprising). Ah, I thought d-i already compressed them (e.g. cloop). Well, here is it: $ du -hs * 2.1M normal 1.8M tiny $ du -h */lib/*.so 100K normal/lib/ld-2.3.6.so 1.3M normal/lib/libc-2.3.6.so 24K normal/lib/libcrypt-2.3.6.so 12K normal/lib/libdl-2.3.6.so 540K normal/lib/libm-2.3.6.so 72K normal/lib/libpthread-2.3.6.so 80K normal/lib/libresolv-2.3.6.so 12K normal/lib/libutil-2.3.6.so 88K tiny/lib/ld-2.3.6.so 1.1M tiny/lib/libc-2.3.6.so 24K tiny/lib/libcrypt-2.3.6.so 12K tiny/lib/libdl-2.3.6.so 500K tiny/lib/libm-2.3.6.so 68K tiny/lib/libpthread-2.3.6.so 68K tiny/lib/libresolv-2.3.6.so 12K tiny/lib/libutil-2.3.6.so -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
