Hi David, > I'm sort of fishing for stories about why that might be a bad idea, beyond > that 1: it varies from standard practice and 2: the initramfs is not backed > by swap, as normal shmfs is Well, one downside of this approach is that you cannot control the size of the root-fs by a variable in leaf.cfg, as we can do now. Boxes that have a lot of packages loaded need a bigger root fs, old boxes with little RAM need a smaller one. It seems difficult to me to decide which root-fs size works for everybody.
> (I guess I'm also sharing that the "existing build environment" had too > high a learning barrier; I guess it does - but I'm afraid the one's who have written it or have used it for several years are not the perfect candidates for writing easy to understand docs that explain things to people new to the build environment. It surely has its rough edges - but it does what it needs to do most of the time. > that the "gcc.lrp" package did not appear to exist > on the .iso; Yup, that's correct. > and that a build environment lrp might be a good idea; I disagree - but if somebody builds a gcc.lrp, it can be put into the contrib area, and people can decide for themselves if they need it or not. > Also you seem to have misconstrued my "size matters" to mean > something different from what I intended. It appears that I have > No harm, no foul. That's good. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
