From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 7 21:35:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13BB16A4B3 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s1.stradamotorsports.com (ip30.gte4.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.215.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6591543FE3 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:35:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcw@highperformance.net) Received: from s1.stradamotorsports.com (s1.stradamotorsports.com [192.168.1.201])h984ZVnx059271; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:35:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcw@highperformance.net) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:35:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" X-X-Sender: jcw@s1.stradamotorsports.com To: "Matthew D. Fuller" In-Reply-To: <20031006025231.GS89184@over-yonder.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Limitations of Crunchgen X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 04:35:46 -0000 On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > FWIW, I build images (off 4.8-RELEASE), with everything dynamic, using > -Os. I get big chunks of the base system, plus some ports, under 16 megs > pretty easily. Routing, DNS, web serving, DHCP, PPP(oE), yada yada yada. > With that base, you can shoehorn one heck of a lot in 64 megs. I am not a hacker. The -Os flag is news to me. From your report, it looks like just the ticket. My goal is to have a very small system, but still have it be FreeBSD, with as little invasion (read work) on my part. Crunchgen was shaping up to be pretty handy for "/" only. My crunched binary was smaller than my kernel! > > I read up on minibsd. I don't like the notion of dynamic linked /bin and > > /sbin. > > Which would be the sticking point. Why not? Heck, if you're > crunchgen'ing everything, then you've got a single point of failure for > everything anyway; what other objections are you working from? Hysterical reasons. The root filesystem is supposed to be static. Once upon a time, I found out the hard way about a missed compile flag for bash on a linux box that made sh/bash dynamic. Imagine my suprise when one day, in single user mode, I couldn't start a shell. Since then, I have been reflexively "static" when I had cause to consider dynamic stuff in root. (-current is moving toward dynamic? ::shudder:: ) Your point is taken though. Since I am farting around here anyway, I'll try the -Os flag. Thanks for your input. FreeBSD has been working so good, I really have nothing to do here but try to make trouble. Frankly, I need to break a couple systems here so I can have some fun fixing them. :) Later, Jason C. Wells