From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:51:16 +0000 Subject: Re: udev source size Message-Id: <20040119195116.GG3896@kroah.com> List-Id: References: <3931.212.67.81.238.1074502022.squirrel@webmail.hosting4p.com> In-Reply-To: <3931.212.67.81.238.1074502022.squirrel@webmail.hosting4p.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:40:44AM -0500, Martin Hicks wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:47:02AM +0100, Tomas wrote: > > Binary size of udev is 50 KB, but source size is >2MB. > > Is this necessary? > > It's due to the udev tarball including a whole whack of external stuff. > I believe that Greg is doing this because many of these programs and > libraries are very young, so compatibility changes from version to > version. > > The tarball is currently carrying around libsysfs and klibc. The bulk > of the extra space is klibc. We also have a copy of a sysfs tree in order to run tests. But the bulk of the tarball is probably the bitkeeper data. The tarball contains all of the bitkeeper metadata so that anyone can see the entire revision history. Is it really a big deal that the tarball is the current size? thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel