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

Growing the size of e2fsprogs-udeb by ~150k

Hi there,

I'm planning on simplifying e2fsprogs's debian/rules file, and one of
the ways I've been thinking about doing this is to stop doing a second
build just for e2fsprogs-udeb.  The main difference has been disabling
features not needed for the installer, such as gettext/NLS (which is
responsible for most of the 145k difference).

Colin suggested that I send a quick note to debian-boot to make sure
this isn't going to be problematic.  Do you think this is going to be
an issue.  (BTW, there has been size creep in e2fsprogs-udebs over the
years; e2fpsrogs-udeb has grown by ~140k beween Debian Jessie and
Debian Buster.)

					- Ted

P.S.  One of the reasons why e2fsprogs-udeb is so large is because it
includes badblocks, e2fsck, tune2fs, and resize2fs, as well as mke2fs.
In contrast, xfsprogs-udeb only includes mkfs.xfs.  Does the installer
actually use these other programs that I've packaged in
e2fsprogs-udeb?  e2fsck/fsck.ext4 is 326k, and resize2fs, tunes, and
badblocks are another 193k.  So if we *do* care about the size of the
udebs, that's the simpler way to shrink the size of e2fsprogs-udeb.
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:36:30PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Theodore Ts'o, le lun. 08 juil. 2019 13:25:32 -0400, a ecrit:
> > How important is noudeb, and why is defined in the first place?
> 
> My usage of noudeb is mostly to avoid the two-times-longer build time 
>

It used to be that I built e2fsprogs twice; once for udebs, and once
for the "normal" build.  I'm planning on ripping that out as being
complexity that seems incredibly painful to convert to using dh, and
the cost seems to be growing the installed size of e2fsprogs-udeb by
145k (or roughly 15%).

Back in the days of boot/root installation floppies, saving every last
byte was clearly important.  My plan is to drop it to save developer
maintenance headache, and it also avoids the double-compilation build
time extension.  (I assume that's what you were referring to when you
mentioned "avoid the two-times-longer build time", right?)

	  	     		      	    	   - Ted

P.S.  If anyone thinks that increasing the size of the debian
installer by 145k is unacceptable, please let me know now....

--- End Message ---
Reply to: