Keep all filesystem tools?

I think we should probably keep all binaries from filesystem tools
packages. It would add approximately 700KB to the final images:

compressed size[1]
btrfs-progs: 120K
e2fsprogs: 18K
jfsutils: 131K
ntfs-3g: 48K
ntfsprogs: 138K
xfsprogs: 209K
TOTAL: 661K

This seems reasonable, especially when we offer the installer image as a
rescue image..

Does this seem reasonable?

-w

[1] x86_64 binaries, compressed with xz


_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

On 4/20/12 6:08 PM, Will Woods wrote:
> I think we should probably keep all binaries from filesystem tools
> packages. It would add approximately 700KB to the final images:
>
> compressed size[1]
> btrfs-progs: 120K
> e2fsprogs: 18K
> jfsutils: 131K
> ntfs-3g: 48K
> ntfsprogs: 138K
> xfsprogs: 209K
> TOTAL: 661K
>
> This seems reasonable, especially when we offer the installer image as a
> rescue image..
>
> Does this seem reasonable?

I like it. If you need to find a little room, there are a probably a few that could be dropped from xfsprogs & e2fsprogs that I could offer guidance on.

-Eric

> -w
>
> [1] x86_64 binaries, compressed with xz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
> Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

On 04/20/2012 04:31 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/20/12 6:08 PM, Will Woods wrote:
>> I think we should probably keep all binaries from filesystem tools
>> packages. It would add approximately 700KB to the final images:
>>
>> compressed size[1]
[snip]
>> TOTAL: 661K
>>
>> This seems reasonable, especially when we offer the installer image as a
>> rescue image..
>>
>> Does this seem reasonable?
>
> I like it. If you need to find a little room, ...

The first thing to go should be the "empty space" in the uncompressed initramfs.
Currently initramfs is 2GB, yet as of 4 months ago 600MB would suffice.
Yes, the 1.4GB of zeroes compresses nicely, BUT it still occupies 500KB!

--

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:08:26PM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> I think we should probably keep all binaries from filesystem tools
> packages. It would add approximately 700KB to the final images:
>
> compressed size[1]
> btrfs-progs: 120K
> e2fsprogs: 18K
> jfsutils: 131K
> ntfs-3g: 48K
> ntfsprogs: 138K
> xfsprogs: 209K
> TOTAL: 661K
>
> This seems reasonable, especially when we offer the installer image as a
> rescue image..
>
> Does this seem reasonable?

Sure does.

--
Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT)
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

Brian C. Lane (bcl@redhat.com) said:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:08:26PM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> > I think we should probably keep all binaries from filesystem tools
> > packages. It would add approximately 700KB to the final images:
> >
> > compressed size[1]
> > btrfs-progs: 120K
> > e2fsprogs: 18K
> > jfsutils: 131K
> > ntfs-3g: 48K
> > ntfsprogs: 138K
> > xfsprogs: 209K
> > TOTAL: 661K
> >
> > This seems reasonable, especially when we offer the installer image as a
> > rescue image..
> >
> > Does this seem reasonable?
>
> Sure does.

Yes, it seems reasonable, modulo any "people still use JFS????" factor.

Bill

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list