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

Re: busybox bloat

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> I just did a quick check -- disabling both dirname and basename will
> save exactly 256 bytes on x86.  Worth it?

yes, we need every byte we can get.  powerpc binaries are always
larger then i386 anyway, and we are really hurting. 

> Here is something perhaps much more interesting:  lazybox lists 'vi' 
> as nonexistant, yet the busybox .deb (which is what is used for the 
> boot-floppies) is enabling this applet.  Disabling 'vi' will save
> 24.3k on x86 (at the cost of losing the One True Editor ;)

definitly kill vi i already did in my Config patch. there is absolutly
no reason for two editors, either we kill vi, or we kill nano-tiny.
that discussion has already occured, nano in vi out.

> Thoughts?

see above.

> > but has anyone actually done any regression testing of posix shell
> > scripts on it? 
> just the regression tests that we have written ourself for busybox.
> Do you have/know of any comprehensive posix shell test scripts?

not really, you could test debootstrap, ybin and ofpath for a
start... (ofpath requires a powerpc, ybin with proper configuration
will run on anything and install bootstrap onto a floppy disk).

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgp6K7m_QeWS6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: