Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
#1657 closed defect (fixed)
Chapter 5 Stripping Notes -- need updating to reflect current numbers
| Reported by: | Owned by: | Jeremy Huntwork | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 6.2 |
| Component: | Book | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | lfs-dev@… |
Description (last modified by )
Randy reported the numbers mentioned in that section are no longer accurate. Needs updating.
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|---|
| Milestone: | → 6.2 |
comment:3 by , 19 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from to |
| Status: | new → assigned |
I generally agree with Bruce's comment. The section could be removed entirely. I'd be very suprised to learn that any of our readers need to strip /tools, especially when we recommend using 2-3 GB for the LFS partition. If they do, they've decided to deviate for their own purposes and should be advanced enough to know how to get the size of the /tools directory down.
Unless I get any objections, I'm intending to remove the chapter 5 stripping section within the next day or two.
CC'ing lfs-dev in case someone there is inclined to express an opinion.
comment:4 by , 19 years ago
From my tests, a little over 6 MB is saved from stripping and 19 MB from removing info/man/doc files. While we may recommend 2-3 GB, we tell the reader only 1.3 GB is needed and I do test that when big packages are updated. I doubt 25 MB will make us or break us, but then what exactly is the reason for removing this page? Are we painting bike sheds or is this really something that is needed? I believe this belongs on lfs-dev for discussion (or at least a link to a discussion that may have already happened) since most people aren't subbed to lfs-book.
comment:5 by , 19 years ago
| Priority: | lowest → normal |
|---|
comment:6 by , 19 years ago
Your tests are way different than mine. At the end of chapter 5, I have 219MB in /tools. After running the two strip commands listed, /tools shows 147MB, a difference of 72MB. Removing the man and info dirs saves me 17MB bringing the total down to 130MB in /tools. So, in total, I saved 89 MB.
Any idea why our figures would disagree so much? I used jhalfs to build based on current SVN and I ran no testsuites up to that point.
comment:7 by , 19 years ago
Same here. All my logs, plus one just received from a jhalfs user, show /with variations of +- 70K):
logs/056-stripping
Installed files disk usage: -91904 KB or -89.75 MB
comment:8 by , 19 years ago
From jhalfs/logs/056-stripping: Tue May 2 16:17:10 CDT 2006 KB: 416680 /mnt/alfs KB: 324440 /mnt/alfs
From 116-strippingagain KB: 768704 /mnt/alfs KB: 677824 /mnt/alfs
Looks like 91-92 MB to me, including the info/man files.
comment:9 by , 19 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Changed the text to read total savings of about 90MB in each case. Of course this is approximate, but it's much closer to the truth than the previous text was.
Done as of r7586.
A comment from Bruce on the matter:
Since the minimum space needed for LFS is on the order of 1.3G and then it is not really large enough for many of the BLFS packages, most users will have a lfs partition much larger than the minimum. Is the section on stripping in Chapter 5 really necessary? Perhaps it should be removed.