On Sun Feb 20 2011 at 04:34:02 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:54:25PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > On Sat Feb 19 2011 at 14:58:45 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:10:36PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > > > Module Name:src
> > > >
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 05:13:58PM +0100, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> > 2. I don't want tons of modules which I'll never need installed
> >into my root file system. As it was common in good old times (tm),
> >my root filesystems are as small as possible. Now, with modules
> >being add
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:45:01AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> well, i dunno about others but i've found that the old modules
> lying around tends to fill up space pretty quickly, but ignoring
> that problem and looking at recent i386 builds, i see that the
> MONOLITHIC kernel set is only 440kb l
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:45:01AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
well, i dunno about others but i've found that the old modules
lying around tends to fill up space pretty quickly, but ignoring
that problem and looking at recent i386 builds, i see that th
On Sun Feb 20 2011 at 07:19:03 -0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:45:01AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> >>well, i dunno about others but i've found that the old modules
> >>lying around tends to fill up space pretty quickly, but
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, matthew green wrote:
well, i dunno about others but i've found that the old modules
lying around tends to fill up space pretty quickly, but ignoring
that problem and looking at recent i386 builds, i see that the
MONOLITHIC kernel set is only 440kb larger than GENERIC, yet the
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 07:19:03AM -0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> "...ignoring [the old modules] problem ..."
>
> A _single_ instance of modules on amd64 occupies > 11MB
>
> # du -sk dest/amd64/stand/amd64/5.99.46/
> 11404 dest/amd64/stand/amd64/5.99.46/
> #
>
> That's nearly a
On 20.02.2011 15:45, matthew green wrote:
>> Have you measured how much modules supposedly increase the size compared to
>> compiling things directly to the kernel? This seems like a rather silly point
>> to me (without numbers, at least).
>
> well, i dunno about others but i've found that the old
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Sun Feb 20 15:59:22 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/distrib/sets: comments deps descrs
src/distrib/sets/lists/etc: mi
Log Message:
set fixes for SASLC
Not quite/completely fixed yet...
=== 1 extra files in DESTDIR
On Sun Feb 20 2011 at 17:15:57 +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> => 1.3MiB. So, a total of 1.3M + 700k = 2MiB. Still missing 1.5MiB.
> MODULAR options seems to consume ~70kiB , so I would assume that the
> rest is due to PIC mode and ELF headers... ?
Dunno where the space is going, but it's certain
On Feb 20, 8:18am, p...@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette) wrote:
-- Subject: RE: CVS commit: src/distrib/sets
| > Module Name:src
| > Committed By: christos
| > Date: Sun Feb 20 15:59:22 UTC 2011
| >
| > Modified Files:
| > src/distrib/sets: comments deps descrs
| > src/
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 06:25:06PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Sun Feb 20 2011 at 17:15:57 +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> > => 1.3MiB. So, a total of 1.3M + 700k = 2MiB. Still missing 1.5MiB.
> > MODULAR options seems to consume ~70kiB , so I would assume that the
> > rest is due to PIC mode
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 08:30:04AM +0100, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > the new code matches the linux drm driver.
>
> ok. IIRC there is a PR with a patch that adds an entry for HD4250
> which can be closed now.
I can't find such a PR - the only open PRs that contain both "radeon"
and "pcidevs"
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:26:24AM +, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
> Modified Files:
> xsrc/external/mit/fontconfig/dist/fc-cache: fc-cache.c
>
> Log Message:
> add a -q (quick) flag to skip the 2s sleep at the end of cache updates
Is there any reason not to just remove the sleep entirel
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:33:08AM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> > Are you going to add a MONOLITHIC kernel to match i386?
>
> I object against such change so I hope that we are not going to
> repeat such move.
I object to *not* having a standard MONOLITHIC config for the
following reasons:
1.
On 20.02.2011 22:58, David Holland wrote:
> 1. Traditionally, whether a driver/fs/option/whatever is listed in
> GENERIC is an indicator of how stable it's believed to be: entities
> that are missing are assumed not to work at all, entities that are
> commented out are assumed not to be stable, and
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 09:58:44PM +, David Holland wrote:
> years without being solved. In fact, in general all such discussions
> have been shouted down by module advocates insisting without evidence
> that no such problems exist -- this is why these problems remain
> unsolved and have been m
17 matches
Mail list logo
