Re: busybox features required for Kickstart support
On Monday 11 May 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> As we have talked at IRC, I'm all for that. I believe we ought to
> avoid bloading installer when possible but we can't hold improvements
> forever. The default machine specs has changed a bit since 2006 and
> then I do believe that this is much less problematic then it was.
So D-I no longer cares about systems like the NSLU ("Slug")?
Keeping memory usage down is IMO still as essential as it has ever been.
It's a huge regression that ppl don't seem to care about that anymore.
What exactly was the size impact on busybox of adding tar create support?
(I tend to agree with Colin that adding that was bizarre.)
What is the size impact of adding getopt and CONFIG_NFSMOUNT support (each
separately and together preferably)?
Without checking such facts you cannot even start to make a decision.