On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, David Douthitt wrote: > > I didn't mean a separate package. I meant rebuilding the whole > > system around glibc-2.1.3. No libc, just glibc in root.lrp. > > root.lrp is loaded by the kernel; if it doesn't fit on a 1.68M disk > it isn't going to happen. If glibc is 4M, it ISN'T going to fit. So, yeah. This got me thinking, and I did a little poking around. And I came to a realization. Why aren't we using glibc 2.1.3? I mean, really. Okay. I know, big-ass thing, etc. Right. Got it. What other libs are needed in the LRP system other than libc.so.6? That could be what smacks me around on this, I haven't checked (yet) to see what else is used. I grabbed a copy of my libc.so.6 file and did some quick testing. Here's libc.so.6 - from a SuSE 7.0 system - in it's natural state. wolfstar@stormcaller:/opt/test > ls -l libc* -rwxr-xr-x 1 wolfstar root 4070534 Jan 3 21:20 libc.so.6 Okay, cool. Then I did some monkeying. wolfstar@stormcaller:/opt/test > strip libc.so.6 wolfstar@stormcaller:/opt/test > ls -l libc* -rwxr-xr-x 1 wolfstar root 967124 Jan 3 21:22 libc.so.6 Well then. Are there issues with using a stripped libc that I'm missing? (Probably, I don't know nearly as much as I'd like about systems functions.) Then, I compressed it. wolfstar@stormcaller:/opt/test > gzip -9 libc.so.6 wolfstar@stormcaller:/opt/test > ls -l libc* -rwxr-xr-x 1 wolfstar root 376595 Jan 3 21:22 libc.so.6.gz So now we've got ourselves a 967k libc from a modern system, that compresses to about 375k. Which should fit a lot nicer on an LRP disk than the previous monstrosity. So, someone please tell me I'm wrong. PLEASE. I don't want to have downloaded Slink for no apparent reason. =) -- George Metz Commercial Routing Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/leaf-devel
