Re: boot-floppies, busybox size reduction status
David Kimdon <David_Kimdon@alumni.hmc.edu> writes:
> > > earlier in this list it has been suggested to have a busybox-bf package in
> > > addition to the normal busybox package. I would strongly encourage this,
> > > though for different reasons:
> > >
> What you suggest sounds reasonable to me.
> > I wonder if we could use the .udeb for this purpose? Adam?
> I'm not Adam . . . . anyway we have discussed using udebs on b-f for
> other things (dhcp clients) and I think the gerneral thought was that
> we didn't want to. Not a whole lot of good reasons not to, mostly it
> is just easier to keep pulling in debs. The path of least resistance
> is to make busybox-bf.
> I personally don't like the proliferation of -bf pacakges. I'd rather
> the b-f build system build all packages from source, perhap seven
> applying patches before-hand when necessary.
Yes, please don't try making a change to base like this at this point
in the freeze. It's just going to have to be a problem we have in
woody. busybox package needs to be tuned to boot-floppies use -- it
might be inconvenient to others but we just need to make comprimises
here so things keep moving forward quickly enough.
...Adam Di Carlo..<firstname.lastname@example.org>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>