Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > > Could we go back to the reasons that made us use this patch > > (apparently the comments have vanished in the patch). IIRC, > > this was because of a user mentioning the binaries' "bloat". However, > > if reducing that bloat makes us lose some functionality, I would > > prefer dropping the patch (which would: 1) make us closer from > > upstream 2) save me a lot of time when merging new upstream versions). > > Please give me time to come up with another solution for the package size > problem. It's been suggested that the ndr code can be split out into a > shared library; I'd like to take a crack and this and propose it upstream. > That should be enough to avoid the need for hackish code-pruning, while > still leaving the binary packages somewhat smaller than the gargantuan > monsters they are otherwise.
As #524048 is somewhat annoying, what do you think is best for unstable? -leave with it and wait for you to move the ndr code to a library -drop the shrik-dead-code.patch patch while you're working on this Also, that issue most certainly happens in stable, so should we do one step back and drop shrink-dead-code.patch in stable so that our users can load VFS modules in lenny ?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
