[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111024174535.GA21918@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:45:35 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: kernel size
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:47:57PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 18:18 +0400, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
> > In general, we really should move to isolinux
>
> I concur. As our next step would be glibc update, which will increase
> CD size anyway, packaging isolinux first is better.
Vasiliy, I think you're confusing "floppy" size and ISO image size. The
glibc update will only increase the latter, whereas we need ISOLINUX to
avoid a limit on the former. Besides, with the gcc update, we're already
beyond 700 MB for the ISO image size, unless we exclude the source code
or something else.
We all seem to agree that moving to ISOLINUX is the right thing to do.
So feel free to work on it before or after glibc update. Right now, we
can't build Owl-current ISOs for i686 anymore (we can for x86_64, for
DVDs) because of this kernel size growth with new gcc. We can fix it by
moving to ISOLINUX, by disabling some kernel features (or moving them to
modules), or/and by figuring out the cause of this growth and maybe
fixing it.
I find it weird that the kernel became smaller for x86_64 (by approx. 1%),
but significantly larger for i686 (by approx. 7%). This might indicate a
problem that we'd want to deal with irrespective of any size limits.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
