Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 01:54:27 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: morganw@chemikals.org Cc: kientzle@acm.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libc size Message-ID: <20021101.015427.98069662.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20021031140542.W86715-100000@volatile.chemikals.org> References: <3DC17C7F.9020308@acm.org> <20021031140542.W86715-100000@volatile.chemikals.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20021031140542.W86715-100000@volatile.chemikals.org>
Wesley Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org> writes:
: And of course the "answer" to that is to create a /lib. Something that I
: would *never ever* want to see. Sure, a few people might throw around the
: idea of an extremely light-weight set of libraries to go into /lib blah
: blah. But I just don't like the idea. Why not create a minimalist C
: library, build with -nostdlib and staticly link against exactly what you
: need.
:
: I usually create a 128 or 64mb root, and the only time this gets "tight"
: is when I keep too many kernels around in /boot. I seem to recall other
: arguments being settled by the "disk space is extremely cheap" issue.
:
: Call me crazy, but FreeBSD just has this "zen" feeling to it, and making
: this kind of change doesnt feel very zennish. I'm sure there are greater
: minds than mine working over this issue, but thats my $0.02.
Actually, NetBSD has done exactly that (created a /lib). They found
that putting only the libraries necessary for boot in there that they
were able to save aboue 10M on the size of /, even after one creates a
few static binaries in /something-like-recover.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021101.015427.98069662.imp>