On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:02:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:25:12PM +0900, Sandro "red" Mathys wrote: > > For example, lets start with 100MB package requirement for the kernel (and > > say 2 GB for userspace). This way the kernel team can implement > > reasonable changes and monitor proper usage (because things grow over > > time). > > > > If later on you realize 100 MB is not competitive enough, come back and > > chop it down to say 50 MB and let the kernel team figure it out. > > > > But please do not come in here with a 'every MB counts' approach. It is > > not very sustainable for future growth nor really easy to implement from > > an engineering approach. > > > > Is that acceptable? The kernel team can start with a hard limit of 100MB > > package requirement (or something reasonably less)? Let's work off budget > > requirements please. > > This is a fair point. To be honest, I've ignored the "every MB > counts" aspect entirely for now. I've instead been focusing on > required functionality, because that's likely going to be the main > driver of what the resulting size will be. > > FWIW, the existing kernel package installed today (a debug kernel > even) is ~142 MB. 123MB of that is the /lib/modules content. ~6MB of > that is vmlinuz. The remaining 13MB is the initramfs, which is > actually something that composes on the system during install and not > something we can shrink from a packaging standpoint. Also, I just arbitrarly threw out 100MB, if we should start higher, say 150MB, then it doesn't matter to me. :-) Cheers, Don _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
