Peter Robinson wrote: >>Are these "JFFS2 image" figures, after the JFFS2 compression? Just some >>example numbers, busybox on my Arm9 here is 606KB and allows you to >>throw away bash (it has ash), vi, coreutils, rpm (a weaker >>implementation, but still), cpio, tar, procps, etc, etc, even networking >>stuff like dhcpd and dhcpc are all in there. If you accept some small >>restrictions and losses of non-core functionality you can perform a >>massive reduction in distro size and packagecount with busybox with or >>without an alternative libc. > uclib which may produce other issues. The advantage of using the core > fedora libraries is that you have economies of scale when it comes to > testing and bug hunting. Accepted that in reality that is also a consideration. But really you are not playing the PC game any more on a box with 512MB flash. I also have a 770 and for all its good points it is crashy with the current firmware image, locks up on low memory situations and so on. Anyway the libc question is different to the busybox question. Does this laptop really need a full bash? A full *.rpm that will be in the minimal packageset? If not, busybox can soak up a huge area in the middle of the distro. -Andy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
