Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:06:51 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Things to remove from /rescue Message-ID: <200307170906.51902.jhb@FreeBSD.org> 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 Thursday 17 July 2003 06:36 am, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:43:10AM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > At 1:08 AM -0700 7/17/03, David O'Brien wrote: > > >This is a list of binaries that I don't feel should be part > > >of /rescue as it's mission is to recover/rebuild a "broken" / > > >[due to all the binaries being dynamic]. Is there > > >justification for keeping them? > > 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 ? I think this is an excellent point. David, can you provide actual numbers of how much removing each of these programs saves? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200307170906.51902.jhb>