Hi!
On 10/05/2017 01:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Since busybox is very important to boot the system and get
debian-installer working, I would like to ask to have the
change from [1] reverted for m68k until we have fixed the
potential bug in gcc which most likely mis-compiled busybox.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:25 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 10/05/2017 01:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>
>> Since busybox is very important to boot the system and get
>> debian-installer working, I would like to ask to have the
>> change from [1] reverted for m68k unt
On 10/05/2017 05:55 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote:
On second thought, I would actually recommended to revert this change
for all architectures. Size isn't so much a constraint anymore these
days, you reduce the binary by about 200k. I don't think this is worth
the risk of breaking something as fundeman
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:25:12AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On 10/05/2017 01:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Since busybox is very important to boot the system and get
>> debian-installer working, I would like to ask to have the
>> change from [1] reverted for m68k
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 06:12:46PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>On 10/05/2017 05:55 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote:
>> > On second thought, I would actually recommended to revert this change
>> > for all architectures. Size isn't so much a constraint anymore these
>> > days, you reduce the bin
On 10/05/2017 06:38 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On second thought, I would actually recommended to revert this change
>> for all architectures. Size isn't so much a constraint anymore these
>> days, you reduce the binary by about 200k. I don't think this is worth
>> the risk of breaking something
Adam D. Barratt wrote...
> I'd be happy with this in general, but the udeb means we need an
> explicit d-i RM ack; CCing appropriately.
Okay, lesson learned: For such packages, don't proscrastinate the
request until close to the deadline that has passed now. There'll be
another point relase, I'll
Steve McIntyre wrote...
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 06:12:46PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >Hmm, ok. Is that currently actually a concern? If I'm seeing that correctly,
> >the "-Os" here only saved us around 200k. Does that already make a difference
> >on armel?
>
> Massively so, yes.
On 10/05/2017 11:49 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> About that particular issue I'd really like to avoid a per-architecture
> switch in busybox. It adds complexity and works around a problem
> instead of solving it.
I wouldn't call that simple if-clause complexity.
> So please take this to gcc first
9 matches
Mail list logo
