On 12/1/06, Martin Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
crufty existing effort in the minimalisation department, the most profitable efforts would be to modify Debian itself, rather than propose yet another cut-down Debian-alike in the following directions:
Yet another? Point me at least two working, non bit-rot, ones.
- continue splitting existing packages into foo and foo-doc, as has already happened to a lot of them. This reduces arch-dep build dependencies and executable package bulk in one go.
Which is an enermous and not really needed (for Debian, that is) effort. An embedded system does not need *any* documentation on the storage, while a Debian package may happily be policy compliant with a bunch of it. This whole discussion is pointless. Debian packages are cross-compiled for a reason -- it's not that many people out there have access to a beowulf cluster of ARMs. Ever wondered how much time it takes a Debian arm buildd to compile gcc suite? Days. If you modify a toolchain yourself, do you really wish to spend 49 hours whistling around your netwinder just to find out it generates broken code and you need another patch? And Debian embedded forks are also for a reason. Nobody in Debian, besides very (*very*) few people, cares about embedded usage -- and benefits of Debian-likeliness in embedded world are appreciated, trust me. -- Regards, Wartan. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
