Bastian Blank wrote: > some time ago, joey hess calls libd-i bloated. a few time before i added > many code to them which enlarges them by 13KiB uncompressed on powerpc. > at the same time a added a multicall binary to di-utils which wraps a > few of the functions for shell scripts. i also moved the shell and > mapdevfs binary in. the resulting binary had a size of 11 or 12KiB (the > glibc adds 8KiB overhead to each executable). joey hess removed that > modifications and also he removed the explicitely requested exec(log) > command. this removes 3KiB (uncompressed), readding execlog adds 5KiB of > code. mapdevfs has no business in the d-i base system (on a floppy), nor does the special-purpose function it calls have any business in libdebian-installer. I have already explained why. I removed the "exec" program because it was badly named (with disastrous consequences if a shell script did "exec foo" and it was not present), undocumented, and did not work, as it was unfinished. Colin Watson has since shown how to write it in a line of shell. Someone should put that in di-utils (and find places that still pipe to logger and fix them) but don't call the program "exec". > some days after he ask why we use busybox-cvs. i don't respond further > but this was mainly space considerations. we decided to use the included > ash (now it is a dash) and later the modutils. this saves something > between 50 and 60 KiB compressed on i386. (and there are some KiBs left, > because we currently provide the iproute and old ifconfig/route > interface) These are of course good reasons to use busybox-cvs and I'm glad to be aware of them now. I asked the question because I was not aware of the history; you connected two unconnected threads. > i have some modifications for libdi pending, it moves some unused > functions to another lib and partialy provides weak dummy symbols (i > hope they work as expected, the testing cycle is not yet written). This is not the time to be making any modifications to libd-i in unstable. I expect we will be getting a beta release out this week (details coming soon). Do it in a branch, do not upload it to unstable. I do not understand why we should need weak symbols in libdebian-installer. That suggests they you are trying to provide some form of backwards compatability, which is not necessary in d-i, and will surely just bloat it further. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature