At 09:56 PM 09/06/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Wooh, has this been laying around for awhile. Sorry for the long
>turn-around, I just got a bit busy and couldn't experiment for a week or so.
>
> > At 11:24 PM 08/25/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> > >BBox46 seems bigger than toms version with equal options, at least when I
> > >compile it. I got 30k, compared to toms which is around 18k.
> >
> > did you use the strip out options (such as --help files)??? This might
> > strip it down more.
>
>The make file already strips the binary, so that's that. I tried to cut it
>down to the same options as the old Busybox: it just seems bigger.
No, there is a 'include no help' option (I seem to recall) that will strip
all of the help text out entirely. This will save more space at the
expense of having zero --help files.
important, but this weekend I found myself using ping -f to do a bit of
>network troubleshooting. It seems a shame to toss the lean & mean Gnu
>utilities on tomsrtbt (there are a few) for the strip-down jobs in Busybox.
>And, with the added bloat of the new Busybox, it's difficult to recover the
>disk space back.
Don't build the stripdown ones you plan on replacing, and see how much
space you get back. Shouldn't be as much, but might be enough.
Seth
