On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:13:33PM -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
> In any case, I tossed around other strings like 'reduced-size' or maybe
> 'optimize-footprint', etc.
I propose "small". That's basically what it means, and it's a single
word which makes parsing easier.
Also, if you intend to use the same kind of "small" for multiple
systems (installer, embedded systems, perhaps others), then "embedded"
is bad because it might encourage changes _specific_ to embedded
systems that won't work in other contexts.
I think that a list of the kinds of size optimizations that would be
acceptable should be part of the policy proposal. As a first guess:
- Specific compiler flags (-Os?)
- No documentation (not even the copyright file?)
- Turning off compile-time options for rarely used features
- Installing most-popular subsets of installed data (example: terminfo,
keyboard definitions)
- Finer grained splitting of binary packages (this could subsume the
previous point)
I don't know if all of these would be acceptable, and I think some of
them might be very reasonable in an embedded context and less so in
an installer context. That's why I think the list should be documented.
For what it's worth, I think this would be a fine addition to policy,
provided that the details work out.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
