Le 10/06/2011 19:01, Martin Paljak a écrit : > Hello, > On Jun 8, 2011, at 19:40 , Viktor Tarasov wrote: > >> Le 08/06/2011 15:10, Viktor Tarasov a écrit : >>> Le 08/06/2011 14:31, Martin Paljak a écrit : >>>> Hello, >>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 19:15 , Viktor Tarasov wrote: >>>>>> Seems reasonable. Will see how it affects the size of the installer. >>>>> The difference in size will be around 1M (both pkcs#11 and minidriver are >>>>> static) . >>>> Hmm... Given that the current installer weights around 1.8M, adding >>>> another megabyte would be a lot (is this the raw file size or an >>>> compressed installer?). >>> Ok, >>> in you previous mail you've suggested the variant 'C' as a possible >>> solution. In this case the difference in the MSI size will be around 0.5M . >>> Can this one be adopted ? >> >> Maybe this helps: >> variant 'C' compiled with 'Minimize Size' optimization has the same size as >> the actual OpenSC-0.12.1-win32.msi . > There was a real life issue in Estonia with OpenSC and maximum optimization > with one of the MS compilers, I should try to find the thread from my inbox. > > Other than that, if optimization works well, choosing option D (static dll-s > in system folder, opensc.dll in program files for tools) with more > optimization would be the most consistent, have you tried how big such > installer would be?
Option 'D' would be the best. Especially if once upon a time the onepin-opensc-pkcs11 will go and there will be only one pkcs11 module. Here are results of the 'minimal size' optimization for the size of OpenSC.msi: 1729024 OpenSC.msi.min-size 1828352 OpenSC.msi.min-size.pkcs11-static 2019840 OpenSC.msi.min-size.pkcs11-minidriver-static about 2.2M OpenSC.msi.min-size.pkcs11-minidriver-onepin-static > Best, > Martin Kind wishes, Viktor. _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
