From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QPhwF-0008M0-3f for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 23:17:51 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 14:14:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,276,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="9583149" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.12.82]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 14:14:45 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:14:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; ) References: <1306443683.5911.1.camel@vorpal.jf.intel.com> <4DDEC006.30701@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4DDEC006.30701@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201105262214.44529.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Cc: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE Cleanup X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 21:17:51 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday 26 May 2011 22:03:02 Darren Hart wrote: > Yeah, this wasn't clear to me either. And my question in 2/2 still > stands - what is the goal of the overhead factor? I think the thinking was that the more software you have installed to begin with the more user data you're likely to need to store. Personally I think it would be simpler if we just set some additional overhead as an absolute value rather than a factor - if it needs to be different per image type then it easily can be. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre