[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111024175628.GA2190@albatros>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:56:28 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: kernel size
Solar,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 21:45 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> 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.
Ah, my common mistake ;-)
> 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.
OK.
> 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.
This might be kernel optimizations for specific gcc version (Something
between 3.x and 4.x), which might be wrong for other versions. I suppose
if we try to compile Linux 2.6.32, we would get more adequate numbers
(IOW, with the upgrade from 4.4 to 4.6).
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy
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.
