Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-10-07 15:44:34
|
On 10/07/2003 11:28:10 AM Bruce Smith wrote: >Back to the original question, any reason not to compile for i586 as t= he >minimum? Yes : http://www.devil-linux.org/poll/test.php?action=3Dresults&poll_id= =3D13 My plan was to release for the final version a i486 and a i686-SMP. I just didn't want to bother for the Release Candidates. Heiko = |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-10-07 16:56:12
|
On 10/07/2003 11:51:23 AM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >Back to the original question, any reason not to compile for i586 a= s >the >> >minimum? >> >> Yes : >http://www.devil-linux.org/poll/test.php?action=3Dresults&poll_id=3D13= >> >> My plan was to release for the final version a i486 and a i686-SMP. >> I just didn't want to bother for the Release Candidates. > >OK. > >Is there going to be another option with XFS? When you fix the XFS part and create this version >A stripped down one for smaller USB memory sticks? When yours is too small, get an enlargement. ;-) cya Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-10-07 17:12:21
|
> >Is there going to be another option with XFS? > > When you fix the XFS part and create this version Is XFS broken, or is grsecurity broken? Or do they both point their fingers at each other? :-) > >A stripped down one for smaller USB memory sticks? > > When yours is too small, get an enlargement. ;-) Yeah, I'll have to start paying closer attention to my spam. :-) I don't mind compiling/maintaining/uploading some of these versions if you'd like me to. All we need to make sure our code is exactly the same for the compiles. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-10-07 17:28:03
|
On 10/07/2003 01:12:17 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >Is there going to be another option with XFS? >> >> When you fix the XFS part and create this version > >Is XFS broken, or is grsecurity broken? >Or do they both point their fingers at each other? :-) The problem is both modify the same files so they break eachother. I would say it's a grsecurity problem, because XFS is bigger and longer= on the market, but my voice doesn't count. ;-) >> >A stripped down one for smaller USB memory sticks? >> >> When yours is too small, get an enlargement. ;-) > >Yeah, I'll have to start paying closer attention to my spam. :-) Yeah. *lol* >I don't mind compiling/maintaining/uploading some of these versions if= >you'd like me to. All we need to make sure our code is exactly the sa= me >for the compiles. We probably should (right now) add the feature of loading different "profiles" or "preconfigured options" to the menuconfig. This way we could make sure, it's every time the same and we dont' forg= ett anything. cya Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-10-07 17:37:35
|
> >I don't mind compiling/maintaining/uploading some of these versions if > >you'd like me to. All we need to make sure our code is exactly the same > >for the compiles. > > We probably should (right now) add the feature of loading different > "profiles" or "preconfigured options" to the menuconfig. > This way we could make sure, it's every time the same and we dont' forgett > anything. Yes, except we need to create those profiles first ... I just got done removing most of the stuff that is not useful for a firewall (servers, compilers, email, ...) and am running a fresh compile to see the size of the resulting ISO. I'll be interesting to see how small of a USB stick is required for a firewall like this. Getting it under 256MB shouldn't be a problem. Under 128MB would be great, but I'm not real hopeful. - BS |
|
From: Dean N. <di...@ti...> - 2003-10-07 18:20:01
|
> >I just got done removing most of the stuff that is not useful for a >firewall (servers, compilers, email, ...) and am running a fresh compile >to see the size of the resulting ISO. > >I'll be interesting to see how small of a USB stick is required for a >firewall like this. Getting it under 256MB shouldn't be a problem. >Under 128MB would be great, but I'm not real hopeful. I support the concept (see my previous emails commenting that the size of Devil-Linux was starting to be a problem - especially when we considered USB pen drives), but I would suggest that Postfix server be included. As I have previously commented, I use only DHCP, IPTables, and Postfix (plus various other utilities). (I want to use ClamAV and SAGATOR - but I haven't tried RC1 yet to see if I can get them to fit into 64MB). I can easily see that being a "standard" configuration for most people. One of the things that can be done (and that I actually do) is to strip a lot of the sample configuration files (especially from the Postfix directory!) from the etc.tar.bz2 that I create. We may want to consider distributing a "full" etc.tar.bz2 containing all of the sample files, and striped down version. Of course, I say that because I build and maintain my Devil-Linux configuration on another box.... Dean Nedelman TimeLord Consulting |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-10-07 21:09:30
Attachments:
.config
|
> > We probably should (right now) add the feature of loading different > > "profiles" or "preconfigured options" to the menuconfig. > > This way we could make sure, it's every time the same and we dont' forgett > > anything. > > Yes, except we need to create those profiles first ... > > I just got done removing most of the stuff that is not useful for a > firewall (servers, compilers, email, ...) and am running a fresh compile > to see the size of the resulting ISO. > > I'll be interesting to see how small of a USB stick is required for a > firewall like this. Getting it under 256MB shouldn't be a problem. > Under 128MB would be great, but I'm not real hopeful. Wow, if I did the math right, this is just under 128MB!!! :-) -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 133332992 Oct 7 15:51 bootcd.iso My .config file is attached if you want to see my selections. - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-10-07 17:47:47
|
> >Is there going to be another option with XFS? > > When you fix the XFS part ... Here you go: http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/ Combined patch for 2.4.22, with all of the following: O(1) + Batch scheduler Preemptible - enable this in kernel config Low latency - enable this in kernel config Variable Hz Supermount-NG XFS file system Bootsplash Gr Security Andrea Arcangeli's VM patches Rik Van Riel's rmap That was easy! :-) - BS |
|
From: Diego T. <dt...@co...> - 2003-10-07 22:37:28
|
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:47:42PM -0400, Bruce Smith wrote: > Combined patch for 2.4.22, with all of the following: > > Bootsplash at last! :)) a patch with bootsplash that surely will go mainline... -- -- gnupg keyfingerprint -- 48AF 5BF9 8F54 2966 64CC 2327 7CD0 DD91 B09D 5799 -- Use of a keyboard or mouse may be linked to serious injuries or disorders. Diego Torres - dt...@co... - Madrid / España |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-10-07 23:01:19
|
Diego Torres wrote: >On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:47:42PM -0400, Bruce Smith wrote: > > > >>Combined patch for 2.4.22, with all of the following: >> >> Bootsplash >> >> > >at last! :)) a patch with bootsplash that surely will go mainline... > > > Will it ? In 2.6 ? One more reason to include it. Heiko |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-10-07 18:00:44
|
On 10/07/2003 01:47:42 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >Is there going to be another option with XFS? >> >> When you fix the XFS part ... > >Here you go: > >http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/ > >Combined patch for 2.4.22, with all of the following: > >O(1) + Batch scheduler >Preemptible - enable this in kernel config >Low latency - enable this in kernel config >Variable Hz >Supermount-NG >XFS file system >Bootsplash >Gr Security >Andrea Arcangeli's VM patches >Rik Van Riel's rmap > > >That was easy! :-) Wow cool ! Document that on sf.net as feature request. As soon as we start working on 1.1, we'll include it (I most likely create a CVS branch this week). cya Heiko = |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-10-07 21:29:42
|
On 10/07/2003 05:09:27 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> > We probably should (right now) add the feature of loading differen= t >> > "profiles" or "preconfigured options" to the menuconfig. >> > This way we could make sure, it's every time the same and we dont'= >forgett >> > anything. >> >> Yes, except we need to create those profiles first ... >> >> I just got done removing most of the stuff that is not useful for a >> firewall (servers, compilers, email, ...) and am running a fresh >compile >> to see the size of the resulting ISO. >> >> I'll be interesting to see how small of a USB stick is required for = a >> firewall like this. Getting it under 256MB shouldn't be a problem. >> Under 128MB would be great, but I'm not real hopeful. > >Wow, if I did the math right, this is just under 128MB!!! :-) Until the next DL release ;-) >-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 133332992 Oct 7 15:51 bootcd.iso > >My .config file is attached if you want to see my selections. For a pure firewall, you could reduce it even more. I.e. No man pages and no documentation. I'm pretty sure you can also remove some more binaries. cya Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-10-08 12:59:56
|
> >Wow, if I did the math right, this is just under 128MB!!! :-) > > Until the next DL release ;-) One release at a time ... :-) > >-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 133332992 Oct 7 15:51 bootcd.iso > > > >My .config file is attached if you want to see my selections. > > For a pure firewall, you could reduce it even more. > I.e. No man pages and no documentation. > I'm pretty sure you can also remove some more binaries. That was only a quick first try to get a rough idea of the ISO size. I can fine tune it more now. - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-10-07 15:51:25
|
> >Back to the original question, any reason not to compile for i586 as the > >minimum? > > Yes : http://www.devil-linux.org/poll/test.php?action=results&poll_id=13 > > My plan was to release for the final version a i486 and a i686-SMP. > I just didn't want to bother for the Release Candidates. OK. Is there going to be another option with XFS? A stripped down one for smaller USB memory sticks? ... :-) - BS |
