On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Kang-Che Sung <explore...@gmail.com> wrote: > (https://git.busybox.net/busybox/commit/?id=4eed2c6c5092ed95b8ee6d994106c54a9fc6ed3e) > > I don't like this. I don't like these size info to be put on the titles > of config options. A few reasons: > * It can give a false impression that the size of the final busybox > binary is the size of these applets summed up, but it's actually not. > (Some code can share among applets) > * The sizes are CPU architecture dependent.
Sure, on a different arch, sizes would change, but "20k" applet is still approximately 4 times larger than "5k" one. that's useful information for the user. > * How the sizes are measured are even unclear. So, does the size include > all optional features of the applet, or is it only the basic > functionality? > > If I were to mention the size in menuconfig, I would put in the help > texts of the config options, rather than their titles. And be clear how > the size is measured, for example: > > CONFIG_BINZIP2 > (Adds about 8.8kB on i686, for bzip2 decompression code) > CONFIG_BZIP2 > (Adds about 18kB on i686, for bzip2 compression and decompression code) Can you automate this for 400 applets and ~600 options? > Or alternatively, don't mention the size at all. The sizes are helping users see which applets are bigger. Without sizes, it was pure guesswork: if someone optimizes for size, he would semi-randomly choose what to "sacrifice". _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
