Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2

From: Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 21:30:07 EST

Next message: Osamu Tomita: "Re: [PATCH] PC-9800 subarch. support for 2.5.62-AC1 (16/21) SCSI"
Previous message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2"
In reply to: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2"
Next in thread: Daniel Egger: "Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> I agree the size of glibc 1.1M and /bin/bash 600K are substantial.
> And in most cases if I had to drop one it would be /bin/bash. But 2M
> is not that bad if you already need 14M for your modules.

[...]

> My basic point was it sounds like the development process is backwards.
> It feels like we are starting big and then going small, instead of the
> other way around.

Truer words were never spoken. Less is more.

-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Osamu Tomita: "Re: [PATCH] PC-9800 subarch. support for 2.5.62-AC1 (16/21) SCSI"
Previous message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2"
In reply to: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2"
Next in thread: Daniel Egger: "Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:16 EST