Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Frans Pop
On Friday 15 May 2009, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:27:55PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Friday 15 May 2009, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > And on the other side you refused anything which would make it > > > possible to reduce the size of the kernel drastically. > > > > You'll h

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Bastian Blank
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:27:55PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 15 May 2009, Bastian Blank wrote: > > And on the other side you refused anything which would make it possible > > to reduce the size of the kernel drastically. > You'll have to refresh my memory. <20080403104216.GA11976%40waveh

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Frans Pop
On Friday 15 May 2009, Bastian Blank wrote: > > 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. You

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Bastian Blank
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

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Frans Pop
On Friday 15 May 2009, Colin Watson wrote: > This information was in the citations I provided in my original e-mail. > At the time I made the original requests, getopt was 1KB and NFS > mounting was 3KB; Bastian's most recent mail suggests that the latter > is more than that nowadays. I didn't che

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 03:32:46PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > What is the size impact of adding getopt and CONFIG_NFSMOUNT support (each > separately and together preferably)? > > Without checking such facts you cannot even start to make a decision. This information was in the citations I provide

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:15:10PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:55:44PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=348314 > > busybox-udeb: please enable getopt > > (mandatory for kickseed) > > The builtin getopts is not en

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-12 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 07:57:35AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > ... and I don't remember this was mentioned for D-I purposes. In > short, we never requested that change, at least in last months. Each udeb is part of D-I by definition. There was two bugs for this feature, one for usage by live

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-12 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > On the other hand, maybe internal tar support is something interesting > for other purposes. After all, D-I is not alone to use busybox, aren't > we? Effectively we are because the udeb has a separate config. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-11 Thread Christian Perrier
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl): > What exactly was the size impact on busybox of adding tar create support? > (I tend to agree with Colin that adding that was bizarre.) ... and I don't remember this was mentioned for D-I purposes. In short, we never requested that change, at least in last

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-11 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:55:44PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=348314 > busybox-udeb: please enable getopt > (mandatory for kickseed) The builtin getopts is not enough? > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=348664 > bu

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-11 Thread Frans Pop
On Monday 11 May 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > As we have talked at IRC, I'm all for that. I believe we ought to > avoid bloading installer when possible but we can't hold improvements > forever. The default machine specs has changed a bit since 2006 and > then I do believe that this is much less

Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-11 Thread Otavio Salvador
Hello Colin, On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > There are a couple of changes in busybox required in order to support > Kickstart (packages/kickseed/), which have been languishing in the BTS > for a long time. Is there any chance that these could be fixed? > >  http://bugs.deb

busybox features required for Kickstart support

2009-05-11 Thread Colin Watson
There are a couple of changes in busybox required in order to support Kickstart (packages/kickseed/), which have been languishing in the BTS for a long time. Is there any chance that these could be fixed? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=348314 busybox-udeb: please enable get