On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Aaron Fredrick Tiensivu wrote:
tiensivu} could be "make arch_clean" or something to that effect, nuking (in my case) all
tiensivu} the PPC, AXP, Sparc, m68k code.
tiensivu}
tiensivu} So, I wasn't suggesting what a lot of you thought I was. :)
I understood. How much smaller would the ./linux directory be if all the "other"
arch stuff were deleted?
Is that why the current kernels are so much bigger than older kernels were?
I tend to require about 32 MB for a "built" kernel.
Nearly half of that is in ./linux/drivers/, between net and scsi, mostly.
If you wanted to shrink the size of the kernel source, what kinds of things would
you eliminate? What impact would it have before compilation? After?
would(){
for arch in m68k sparc alpha mips ppc ; do rm -rf $arch ; done
}
have a significant impact, and what effect would it have on the ability to
upgrade kernel sources by patching?
To be honest, I have no problem with the size of the kernel source. In fact,
we are supposed to be getting delivered an Alpha with Linux installed, tomorrow.
This probably means that I want to see the code at all times.
However, in the case of e.g., a network of file servers, it would be nice to strip
the kernel source tree down to the bare essentials. I suppose it is wise in some
installations to erase everything except the /usr/include stuff (so compilers can work)
while erasing the rest of the kernel source.
- --
g-r-a-t-e-f-u-l-l-y---[ email:<fishbowl@conservatory.com> ]---l-i-v-i-n-g
d-e-a-d-i-c-a-t-e-d---[ http://www.conservatory.com/~fishbowl ]-----l-i-g-h-t
Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out of it alive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQBVAwUBMYaryMPTedxmOfz5AQHpAgH9F6p2iJNdQRfcTgRVuXSYAcdruO75Xy5P
EpQ0Nh8UIlA0SlKMJ8BS4k9/vHL34XFwSJx2rrHt8GFVwYmApi7Wyg==
=zpEq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----