Steve McIntyre wrote...
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 06:12:46PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >Hmm, ok. Is that currently actually a concern? If I'm seeing that correctly,
> >the "-Os" here only saved us around 200k. Does that already make a difference
> >on armel?
>
> Massively so, yes. Lots of the armel platforms that people care about
> have very limited space for kernel and initramfs.
Indeed. When we (KiBi, Chris and I) discussed maintaining busybox at
DebConf, such size concerns were on the list of things to keep in mind.
For that reason we will enable more applets upon justified request only.
About that particular issue I'd really like to avoid a per-architecture
switch in busybox. It adds complexity and works around a problem
instead of solving it. So please take this to gcc first unless you've
already done so. And let us know if you get the impression this won't
get fixed soon-ish - breaking an architecture still beats packaging
principles.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature