On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 00:10 +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> Dear Ben, >> >> Thanks for the ping! >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: >> > Sadly, linux has again failed to build on armel in experimental due to >> > the image size growing too large. >> >> Yes, I noticed this armel FTBFS issue. >> However, the solution simple solution, you mentioned in previous email >> [0], has been used. >> Now I think we have to touch the crypto module part, which affects >> cryptsetup/initramfs-tools. >> I'll try this approach this week. >> >> [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2017/05/msg00040.html > > Since we are preparing to enable AppArmor by default, I looked at the > armel config and found that it still had SECURITY_SELINUX enabled (but > no other LSMs). I've just committed a change to the sid branch that > disables that and enables SECURITY_APPARMOR instead. AppArmor appears > to be smaller than SELinux, possibly by enough to fix this.
Thanks for the info! Yes, I confirm that after enabling AppArmor, armel kernel reduced to 98.6%, which is quite significant. However I'll keep trying to reduce by other way during buster period. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
