On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Steven Chamberlain <ste...@pyro.eu.org> (2014-08-20): >> On 14/08/14 18:32, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> > Now, I think there are several questions to answer: >> > 1. What were the reasons for having arch-dependent dhcp clients? >> >> I'd speculate because udhcpc from busybox is very small, and >> isc-dhcp-client-udeb was about 2 MiB. It targets (currently only builds >> on) Linux; there is a bug open somewhere about porting it to kfreebsd; >> it's infeasible before the jessie freeze, and IMHO I think I prefer to >> keep the ISC version (mostly from a security POV). > > 2MiB looks like a candidate for huge savings, which might make some > sense since we're repeatedly hitting ENOSPC with kfreebsd-*, don't you > think? > > Not trying to impose any decision, just a bit shocked while discovering > its size.
dhclient in the udeb is around 1.7 MiB because of embedded bind, which was introduced in isc-dhcp 4.2. I plan to spend some time to switch that to dynamically link, which will reduce size since only the parts of bind actually used will be needed rather than the whole thing. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
