[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: BeastieBox, a (Net)BSD BusyBox-like
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM, David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> Thats not entirely a fair metric:
> - My 4.4MB /rescue gzips down to 2.2MB, which means vndcompress(1)
> could be a real win
This is a bogus reasoning. Architecture we are speaking about also
have RAM constraint and you can hardly vndcompress(1) md image
embedded in the kernel.
> - None of the numbers I've quoted above were with -DSMALL, plus
> Thor's previous comments about making -DSMALL work for libc and
> others could gain a lot
Maybe the libc could be shrunken too. 170k for a static executable
which take 10k dynamically is defitively too much.
> My gut feeling would be tuning the set of binaries and some
> work with -DSMALL could get your 3.4MB down to 2.5MB
with a lot of #ifdef, certainly.
I'd love see a kernel + minimal usable userland fit in 4MB, at *runtime*.
Main Index |
Thread Index |