Re: Ash + historic + uClibc +static : 287Ko
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:40:06PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Can someone remind me what is the benefit of having
> Ash + historic + uClibc +static ?
>
> We're trying to save space?
For Ash, one needs some shell I think...
For saving of space, uClibc should be obvious.
For historic, it's for convenience for the user. This is sugar, but if sugar
can be included without a huge cost, it's worth trying.
For static, this is :
1) because if one uses uClibc, uClibc ld.so may conflict with other
2) because --- for what I'm doing now --- I plan to use the same core system
both for installation and recovery. A static shell depends on nothing, so
it's still here even when you have messed up all the libc and dynamic
linker. So a static 28xko ash is better than a sash or a dynamically linked
bash.
Note : this is not for woody boot-floppies. This is for "after", and the fact
that this succeeded may be of some interest for others, even if they don't
have enough space to put the historic (cost 18xKo at the moment; I will work
to reduce that and try to obtain a "static compiled against uClibc ash with
historic" of less than 200Ko.
--
Thierry LARONDE, Centre de Ressources Informatiques, Archamps - France
http://www.cri74.org/
Reply to: