1 Sep 2002 01:49
Re: /rescue, crunchgen'ed?
Richard Rauch <rauch <at> rice.edu>
2002-08-31 23:49:36 GMT
2002-08-31 23:49:36 GMT
(Sorry for the numerous typos in the original. On reading it, I'm appalled at myself. (^& Oh well...) > > The former seems about like the dependancy on crunchgen, and elimites the > > complexity of having two sets of binaries. > > While exploding the / partition size. Otherwise: fine. Maybe we should add If space on / is a problem for so many, why do /home and /var reside on / by default? I have trouble believing that a cramped / is a serious issue. I'm sure you can find a few machines for which this acttuall matters. Crunchgen may be preferable for them. They may even want their / to have crunchgen binaries (from the numbers someone listed, I think that that saves even more space than shared, yes?). People in such "extreme" environments will presumably want or need to do some extra work to get things working anyway; a default setup that they can override (and which doesn't actively impede them installing a working system) seems like the appropriate response, to me. > yet another make knob to generate uncrunched /rescue binaries for those that > like it and have the space available? (No idea if this is easily implementable > without making a big mess out of the /sbin and /bin makefiles) Or, generate uncrunched /rescue and add a knob to *not* generate /rescue. If people want, they can use the dynamic-linked root (or the old static-linked root) as their sole setup. Then the Makefile knob would be "generate /rescue or not", which should be fairly simple. I'm not sure how much it complicates things to make a crunchgen'ed /rescue(Continue reading)
RSS Feed