Hi, > At least for me that's the but another reason was to enable guest > network (and BTW why Luci just don't have a single button for this?).
Because it has not been implemented yet. Adding the code for it would probably consume another 5-10KB uncompressed. > [...] > Let's take for example Luci as most big part of software. > > First of all it turned out that there is luci-mod-admin-mini package and > it's supports only basic configuration which actually covers all my needs. This package is marked broken and hasn't been maintained in years. > But the luci-mod-admin-mini was not ever mentioned in wiki and seems > like not used at all. > > Even standard Luci can be easily and significantly reduced in twice just > by removing images and icons. As I already pointed out in my other reply, this is a rather optimistic assumption. At best you can expect a single digit percentage improvement by dropping icons. I know that people love to point at the ui and complain about single kilobyte size increases there while kernel and user land updates easily throw away dozens to hundreds of KB due to new transient dependencies, larger vmlinux images or additional feature code footprint. All I can say is that I've been extremely conservative with LuCI changes, always trying to not increase the storage footprint at all and avoiding dependencies or code bloat whenever possible. > Luci uses a lot of images but they are not in some optional theme > package but in sources themselves (i.e. in > modules/luci-base/htdocs/luci-static/resources/icons). See my other reply. Regards, Jo
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
