On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 16:05 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> has any consideration been give to the size increase required by the
> change from libidn (678k) to libidn2 + libunistring (228k + 1246k)?
> That's not *too* bad, since currently none of the things which depend
> on id
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 09:42 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:05:50PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > has any consideration been give to the size increase required by
> > the
> > change from libidn (678k) to libidn2 + libunistring (228k + 1246k)?
> > That's
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:05:50PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> has any consideration been give to the size increase required by the
> change from libidn (678k) to libidn2 + libunistring (228k + 1246k)?
> That's not *too* bad, since currently none of the things which depend
> on idn
Hi,
has any consideration been give to the size increase required by the
change from libidn (678k) to libidn2 + libunistring (228k + 1246k)?
That's not *too* bad, since currently none of the things which depend
on idn end up in the initramfs, but still, it's noticeable.
Zbyszek
On Tue, Apr 04,
