On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 06:48:13PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Tue Sep 04, 2001 at 04:18:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > > > yup but again i still need busybox reduction since none of this reiser > > stuff is on the powerpc disks, and i still have a problem with space > > there. > > Hmm. Then something must be eating up all that space -- powerpc > binaries are not that much bigger then x86 binaries... Is library > reduction not working on powerpc? well libc is about 700k on the root disk, and several MB in /lib so lib reduction is at least partially working. someone suggested that mklibs.py may be more effective i wasn't paying much attention when that thing materialized though. my best wild guess is that libc 2.4.4 is somehow larger then 2.2.3 was. > > why again are we not using minix for the root floppy filesystem? its > > a bit more space efficient no? > > Well, since we have to mount the target fs, we already have to pay most of the > price for ext2 anyways (the size of mkfs.ext2 and the size of the kernel ext2 > code). So switching to minixfs isn't going to save us all that much. If we > are going to bother with changing filesystems, IMHO only cramfs really makes > sense. Redhat switched their installer to using cramfs and apparently gained > quite a lot of space that way... of course we have to have mke2fs, and ext2 in memory, but memory isn't the problem, its space available on the root disk. ive read minix has less overhead then ext2. cramfs requires 2.4 and i don't think debian is prepared to use that as a stable kernel. (though if woody drags on much longer 2.4 will end up being stable enough by release time...) -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpzbqjNKy6Dy.pgp
Description: PGP signature