Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:07:04 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Things to remove from /rescue Message-ID: <20030717160704.GA46923@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030717033620.B51802@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20030717080805.GA98878@dragon.nuxi.com> <p05210671bb3c1bf6b8fd@[128.113.24.47]> <20030717033620.B51802@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 03:36:21AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > This is a crunched binary, so space is really not a big issue (plus, > the basic set of libraries is probably some 300-400Kb, so discussing > about adding/removing components which take 2-3 KB such as date, > sleep, comcontrol, conscontrol is just pointless in my opinion; > just convenience should be enough to keep some things around). > > For ipfw/natd, i admit that they might be fatter than what one might > want, but then again they might be useful in case you have to access > the outside world to grab things. What do you save by removing them ? Build time, build overhead, having to keep src/rescue/librescue in sync with the libs it takes from (things like -D, etc...), this isn't kitchen sink linux, complication of rescue Makefiles, <I could go on>. P.S. ipfw would be a lot more useful if the kernel-appl API were versioned. It isn't uncommon for the installed ipfw(8) to not work with a random kernel.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030717160704.GA46923>