Re: Linux 2.4.x - reduce size of /lib libraries in ramdisk

In article <1138608700.586584@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> 2) Statically link the executables you need and remove the shared libraries
> altogether.
That wouldn't help much if he had lots of statically linked
files. That actually increases the RAM usage as every one would have
to have its own set of libs intergrated into each application. In this
case, shared librairies make sense.
> You might also investigate dietlibc, a C library you can link against
> that is as slim as possible.
Not a bad idea, also I have started creating my own libc5
version of Slackware 8.0 a few years ago. by using Gcc 2.7.2 I really
trimmed the final objects down drastically. Even on my stock Glib2.2
Slackware 8.0 by using gcc 2.7.2 the final product was much smaller.
Never tried that dietlibc you mentioned though, might want to give it
a try if I ever resume the libc5ing Slackware again. Right now I got
enough on my plate trying to get my bbs back online.
> 3) Use a kit like busybox that has alternative versions of many of the
> commands you need and is optimized for small size.
Good idea, Using Assembly Language (he is using it for
embedded work) would allow an even greater savings of RAM and disk
space.

--

From the Desk of the Sysop of:
Planet Maca's Opus, a Free open BBS system. telnet://pinkrose.dhis.org
The New Cnews maintainer
B'ichela

.