Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Jeremy Huntwork may have mentioned these words:
I would like to see this quantified. The ability to plug in a another
compressor is nice, however, it's not very useful if the achieved
compression is the same or worse as what we currently have with squashfs.
Not necessarily, IMHO. Personally, a slightly (2-4%) worse compression
factor might be preferable if the decompression speed increased 20-40%
or more.
Agreed.
On a totally different and wacky tack, has there been any tests done
with... say... building all the apps for the LiveCD with dietlibc or
uclibc - that would make the apps themselves much smaller and take less
RAM -- but -- would those apps still be viable as a platform to build
the normal glibc-based libs & apps?
Never tried it myself, so I couldn't say as to it's usefulness. We do
have a general policy to try to stick as closely to the target LFS book
as we can, though, so using a different C library would pretty much kill
that policy.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
