Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:07:19 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /stand/camcontrol Message-ID: <AANLkTimbj2keVzpHC5CHP6buxg=RRu8FsWL4QK0g-K80@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86bp8h5mn6.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86bp8h5mn6.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/9/1 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no>: > Consider the following commit: > > =C2=A0r89471 | joerg | 2002-01-17 21:26:14 +0100 (Thu, 17 Jan 2002) | 8 l= ines > > =C2=A0Provide an option to make camcontrol `minimalistic': if the (env/ma= ke) > =C2=A0variable RELEASE_BUILD_FIXIT is defined, a camcontrol binary will b= e > =C2=A0built that only knows the "rescan" and "reset" subcommands. =C2=A0T= he > =C2=A0resulting code is small enough to still fit onto the boot floppy. > > This makes /stand/camcontrol completely useless. > > Do we still care about fitting sysinstall on a floppy? > > The full camcontrol is about 100 kB larger than the pared-down version, > but I'm not sure the difference is that big when it's crunched with the > rest of /stand. > > =C2=A0 text =C2=A0 =C2=A0data =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bss =C2=A0 =C2=A0 dec =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 hex filename > =C2=A0268751 =C2=A0 26464 =C2=A0 54112 =C2=A0349327 =C2=A0 5548f camcontr= ol-crunch > =C2=A0355122 =C2=A0 27064 =C2=A0 58904 =C2=A0441090 =C2=A0 6bb02 camcontr= ol-full My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size for rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced to libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel that this can be gone. One of my hope is that we can add bzip2 or even 7zip support to loader, though, which may not fit a floppy though. Cheers, --=20 Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimbj2keVzpHC5CHP6buxg=RRu8FsWL4QK0g-K80>