Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 06:01:34AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > >> Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): >> > > >>> I fear this is probably due to the shrink_dead_code patch, whose express >>> purpose is to trim functions out of the binaries that aren't used in the >>> program - we have no good way to detect that we want to keep these for the >>> benefit of external vfs modules, and in this case the external vfs modules >>> are the *only* things using this function. >>> > > >> I was fearing something like this... >> > > >> Could we go back to the reasons that made us use this patch >> (apparently the comments have vanished in the patch). IIRC, >> this was because of a user mentioning the binaries' "bloat". However, >> if reducing that bloat makes us lose some functionality, I would >> prefer dropping the patch (which would: 1) make us closer from >> upstream 2) save me a lot of time when merging new upstream versions). >> > > Please give me time to come up with another solution for the package size > problem. It's been suggested that the ndr code can be split out into a > shared library; I'd like to take a crack and this and propose it upstream. > That should be enough to avoid the need for hackish code-pruning, while > still leaving the binary packages somewhat smaller than the gargantuan > monsters they are otherwise. > FWIW We are already working on this upstream; Volker and I discussed building a separate shared library for libndr and the generated ndr code during SambaXP.
Cheers, Jelmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
