Re: BeastieBox, a (Net)BSD BusyBox-like

["Arnaud Lacombe" <lacombar%gmail.com@localhost>]

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*.

 - Arnaud