[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Patch not included in e2fsprogs 1.21.



> The other issue is that the "lite" libext2fs.so.2.4 should never ever
> be installed on a normal system, since it's missing a lot of necessary
> object files.  In fact, when I was chatting with Larry McVoy, he
> warned me that I might be unloosing a time-bomb that might come back
> to haunt me.  My rejoinder was that users would *never* be quite so
> stupid as to install the "lite" libext2fs on a normal system, but
> Larry reminded me how completely idiotic users can be.
> 
> One other alternative is to actually build the library using a
> completely different base-name (i.e., libext2fs-lite.so.2.4), and then
> build binaries like this: mke2fs.lite and e2fsck.lite.  This has the
> advantage that it makes it possible to install the shared-library and
> binaries on a normal system, and it makes it less likely that the
> "lite" version of libext2fs ever gets accidentally installed on a
> normal system as system libext2fs library.
> 
> What do people think?
> 

This is all great, saving space is really important and I don't want to sound
negative.

My feeling is that this work should probably be directed towards
debian-installer rather than boot-floppies for the following reasons:

1. debian-installer already has the 'udeb' idea, that is, a special package
comopiled with different flags, potentially from the same source as a normal
'deb'. Therefore this whole effort is a lot easier to work with
debian-installer.

2. boot-floppies is end of lifed.  We're doing pretty well now. Sure, some space
would be nice, in fact 200k would be wonderful so we could include the language
chooser on 1.44 floppies, but this looks like more effort than it is worth.

3. debian-installer development has slowed greatly, maybe this will give us all
a kick so we can remember it and maybe have something working for woody's
release for those who want to test out the cutting edge.

-David



Reply to: