On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: > > IMO a difference of 4 MB is not really worth the testing effort, nor > > does it make any real difference to users. So I propose to just get rid > > of the distinction between lowmem level 1 and 2. > > The only reason I can see to keep it is that the levels might change in > the future. If level 1 drops below 32 mb, there will be a good reason to > want it. Or if level 2 raises above 48 mb, we'll want level 1 again. > > Both of these seem unlikely at the moment, but it's hard to tell.. I don't really see that having lowmem 1 or 2 makes that big a difference from a user perspective. Users with boxes with that little memory will probably be savvy enough to handle lowmem 2 anyway. Also, the disctintion is not as clear cut as it may seem. It is very much a question of how much memory is consumed by modules that are loaded automatically, or exactly what kernel udebs are required to even support the specific hardware. I've seen tests fail with fairly minor shifts in what I'm actually doing, so saying "D-I will work with xMB at lowmem Y" is risky anyway. For me that's another reason to simplify to a single lowmem level as a kind of "super expert" mode.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.