Re: image size on 20.xx builds -- what about a new SMALL target

2020-08-04 Thread Bjoern Franke
Hi, Keep in mind master sets CONFIG_KERNEL_KALLSYMS whereas stable builds do not. That alone makes a bit of a size difference (never checked how much). Other than that, 5.4 needs more space than 4.14 does (again, how much exactly I have not quantified). Thanks for that hint. Disabling CONFIG_

Re: image size on 20.xx builds -- what about a new SMALL target

2020-08-03 Thread Stijn Segers
Hi, Op maandag 3 augustus 2020 om 9u40 schreef Henrique de Moraes Holschuh : On 02/08/2020 19:11, Daniel Golle wrote: On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:49:54PM +0200, Bjoern Franke wrote: Hi, Your Filesystem has a size of 5.81M. MT7620 has a kernel size of around 2M, which exceeds the availabl

Re: image size on 20.xx builds -- what about a new SMALL target

2020-08-03 Thread Rich Brown
I'm cc'ing the OpenWrt-Adm list on this as well, because I smell a policy decision looming. Some thoughts: 1) In my opinion, we should not aim for a third (Tiny/Small/Normal) build for 20.xx. We don't need any more hurdles to overcome before we ship an RC1 version. 2) I had not understood how "

Re: image size on 20.xx builds -- what about a new SMALL target

2020-08-03 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On 02/08/2020 19:11, Daniel Golle wrote: On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:49:54PM +0200, Bjoern Franke wrote: Hi, Your Filesystem has a size of 5.81M. MT7620 has a kernel size of around 2M, which exceeds the available space on flash. On 19.07.3, the listed lineup of packages has 5.54M and it fit

Re: image size on 20.xx builds

2020-08-03 Thread Bjoern Franke
Hi, Apart from the usual kernel growth we have also enabled a bunch of previously disabled kernel features on targets which are not marked as SMALL_FLASH[1]. MT7620 is a mixed bag in that regard and it would make sense to split it similar to ath79 into a 'tiny' and a 'generic' variant. The 'mt76

Re: image size on 20.xx builds

2020-08-02 Thread Daniel Golle
On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:49:54PM +0200, Bjoern Franke wrote: > Hi, > > > > > Your Filesystem has a size of 5.81M. MT7620 has a kernel size of around 2M, > > which exceeds the available space on flash. > > On 19.07.3, the listed lineup of packages has 5.54M and it fits: > > Exportable Squashf

Re: image size on 20.xx builds

2020-08-02 Thread Bjoern Franke
Hi, Your Filesystem has a size of 5.81M. MT7620 has a kernel size of around 2M, which exceeds the available space on flash. On 19.07.3, the listed lineup of packages has 5.54M and it fits: Exportable Squashfs 4.0 filesystem, xz compressed, data block size 262144 compressed data, com

Re: image size on 20.xx builds

2020-08-02 Thread David Bauer
Hi Bjoern, On 8/2/20 7:23 PM, Bjoern Franke wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to create an image for an Archer C50v1 (mt7620). > > Tryin to build an image with the following packages[1] using the imagebuilder > was impossible because the image got too big: > Building images... > Parallel mksquashfs:

image size on 20.xx builds

2020-08-02 Thread Bjoern Franke
Hi, I'm trying to create an image for an Archer C50v1 (mt7620). Tryin to build an image with the following packages[1] using the imagebuilder was impossible because the image got too big: Building images... Parallel mksquashfs: Using 1 processor Creating 4.0 filesystem on /data2/openwrt/openw