From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valentine Barshak Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 01:47:10 +0400 Subject: [Buildroot] initramfs compression and some other questions In-Reply-To: <506C98F7.2000408@mind.be> References: <506C7BE3.9040001@gmail.com> <506C98F7.2000408@mind.be> Message-ID: <506E03DE.2020701@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 10/03/2012 11:58 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 03/10/12 19:54, Valentine Barshak wrote: >> Hi, >> I've been using buildroot for a small (i586) Linux recovery image, >> having both the kernel and initramfs root in a single >> image. >> >> By default, buildroot (linux/linux.mk) sets GZIP compression for >> initramfs, and there's no option to choose other >> compression mode. >> >> My question is why is GZIP compression forced for initramfs? >> IMHO, initramfs compression doesn't make much sense, since >> the kernel is compressed altogether with initramfs, and we >> have double compression, that adds more size to the resulting image >> and time overhead when unpacking. >> >> Why not remove the following lines from linux.mk? >> $(call >> KCONFIG_DISABLE_OPT,CONFIG_INITRAMFS_COMPRESSION_NONE,$(@D)/.config) >> $(call >> KCONFIG_ENABLE_OPT,CONFIG_INITRAMFS_COMPRESSION_GZIP,$(@D)/.config)) >> >> Or probably use KCONFIG_ENABLE_OPT,CONFIG_INITRAMFS_COMPRESSION_NONE >> instead? >> >> Besides, there are other compression methods supported by linux kernel, >> so why force GZIP? > > Good idea. Care to make a patch? I'll try to play with it a bit more and maybe eventually come up with a patch. > >> BTW, I have submitted a number of patches to the list, that attempt >> to fix some of the issues I've encountered while building my recovery >> image. Is it the right place to share patches or >> do I need to use bugz and file a bug for each change? > > It's the right place. We don't use bugzilla that much - basically > only for > bugs that aren't resolved (yet). > > >> I have some more changes that I'd like to share. >> It's been no ack/nack for the stuff I sent last week. So I'm kind of >> wondering whether this stuff is needed upstream. > > It just takes a while before patches get committed. As long as you react > to the comments you get (like you did), they should be included in the long > run. But it can take months... > Really hope it's gonna be faster than that. It's hard to keep track of things for months. BTW, some of the patches have got in already, thanks to Peter. > >> And the last question is about adding new packages to buildroot. >> For example, do you plan to add a pdf viewer? >> >> I've added epdfview, it seems to work fine. Is there any reason >> to not include it in the mainstream buildroot? >> >> I've also added tigervnc for my small recovery image. >> Seems to work fine as well. >> Do you plan to include it as well or is it considered unneeded for the >> majority of the buildroot users? > > Well, firefox is on the way in, so a pdf viewer shouldn't be a problem > :-) hehe, OK, I'll prolly prepare some more patches if I have time. Thanks Arnout. > > Regards, > Arnout > Regards, Val.