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

Re: debian-installer and libraries

On Wed, 5 Dec 2002, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Bruce Sass
> | On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > Most of those are built from -pic libraries, which are reduced
> | > versions of the normal libraries.  It is impossible to know which
> | > functions are needed before the actual build of the boot media.
> | >
> | > So, yes, it is a bit inconsistent, but it's the only way.  (AFAIK, at
> | > least)
> |
> | Would it be possible to reduce the libs at release build time?
> : tfheen@yiwaz ~ > ls -l /lib/libc-2.3.1.so
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root      1109068 2002-11-19 19:13 /lib/libc-2.3.1.so*
> You'll have a problem sticking that and a kernel and any other tools
> onto a 1.44 MB floppy.
> And I don't see what you think it buys you; could you perhaps explain
> what you meant, or rather why you think it's a win to use non-reduced libs?

There seems to be a snag when a developer wants to use a routine not
in the libc (whatever) udeb.  Delaying the reduction until it is time
to actually produce a version the must fit on a floppy may make things
a little easier and speed up development.  Of couse there is a risk
that any savings would get eaten up in rewrites if the lib can't be
reduced enough, which is where the external tracking mechanism comes
in so developers know when they are bloating the lib and can run it by
the rest of the team before they get too far along (but without having
to wait for a new reduced lib to be built and distributed.

Of course there is always the chance that any gains I see are simply a
result of my ignorance... so feel free to blow the idea out of the
water (sts).

- Bruce

Reply to: