Re: libm on root-filesystem?
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 04:12:41AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
>
> > Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
> >
> > > Thimo Neubauer <thimo@debian.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 09:42:28PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > > > > Thimo Neubauer <thimo@debian.org> writes:
> > > > > Ouch. So its that libslang itself should be reduced, and based on
> > > > > that, the usage in libnewt should be reduced?
> > > >
> > > > Almost :) First libnewt needs to be reduced, then libslang and after
> > > > that libm, so that only the really needed math-symbols get in :(
> > >
> > > I'll take a swipe at it.
> >
> > Ok, this is done in CVS.
> >
> > Can some people test this?
>
> Hm, I've not tested it, but in any case mklibs.sh seems to be getting
> more and more ugly. I've considered rewriting it in Python, using an
> iterative method where I simply add symbols until everything is
> satisfied. Shell is just not the language for such stuff. Does that
> look like a good idea? Would add another build dependency, but we have
> a gazillion already ;)
Rather than writing Yet Another library optimizer, which I see you and
Goswin have done, I think we should investigate some of the existing
ones. I know Lineo has one (is it free?), and MontaVista has one too
(which is, I believe, supposed to be free but not released yet - I'll
see if I can make headway on this on Monday).
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: