Xin LI writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > Xin LI writes:
> > > My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size
> > > for rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced
> > > to libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I
> > > feel that thi
2010/9/2 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
> Xin LI writes:
>> My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size for
>> rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced to
>> libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel that
>> this can be gone.
>
> This is /st
Xin LI writes:
> My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size for
> rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced to
> libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel that
> this can be gone.
This is /stand, not /rescue; /rescue has a full cam
binary will be
> built that only knows the "rescan" and "reset" subcommands. The
> resulting code is small enough to still fit onto the boot floppy.
>
> This makes /stand/camcontrol completely useless.
>
> Do we still care about fitting sysinstall on a fl
uot; and "reset" subcommands. The
resulting code is small enough to still fit onto the boot floppy.
This makes /stand/camcontrol completely useless.
Do we still care about fitting sysinstall on a floppy?
The full camcontrol is about 100 kB larger than the pared-down version,
but I
5 matches
Mail list logo
