Hi,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Christian Robottom Reis <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:kiko@linaro.org">kiko@linaro.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi there!<br>
<br>
    I unpacked our minimal release image and ran an xdiskusage on it,<br>
mostly to see what we&#39;re shipping -- and I was surprised to see that a<br>
fourth of the image is actually apt package caches and lists.  Can we<br>
put into the image generation script something to strip them out before<br>
generating the image?<br></blockquote><div><br>if there are really .deb&#39;s shipped in the tarball then this is definitly waste and a bug.<br>
<br>However, if its just the lists and pkg cache then I am not so convinced unless we say we<br>remove apt (and dpkg) from our images (e.g. dont allow easy install/upgrade etc.).<br><br>Those files would come back when running apt-get update etc., so the only<br>
thing we would win is smaller initial  download bandwidth, while I think we are really after<br>general/lasting disk foodprint savings.<br><br>One thing we could do is remove universe from our default apt line. this probably would<br>
reduce the size of that directory by &gt; 50% ...<br><br>Long term we could have our own archive with less packages ... this could reduce size<br>of those indexes etc. even further.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">

<br>
The untarring also suggests a number of places where we could further<br>
trim the image, some of which are probably pretty hard to do:<br>
<br>
   * stripping /usr/share/doc out (but everybody knew that)<br></blockquote><div><br>ack. we plan to do that using pitti&#39;s dpkg improvements; last time they didn&#39;t land<br>in the archive yet, but I will check the status soon again.<br>
 <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
   * dropping charmaps, zones and locale info that will never really be<br>
     used<br></blockquote><div><br>I haven&#39;t look into those. if we ship useless stuff we should definitly make<br>it go away. Anyone volunteers to look at this aspect a bit closer?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">

   * stripping out modules for devices that won&#39;t ever be on<br>
     this ARM device<br></blockquote><div><br>yeah, this feels to make sense. However, I am not sure how to draw the line.<br>Maybe this is something the kernel WG can take a look at and come up with a<br>reduced list of modules?<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
   * stripping out firmware for peripherals that won&#39;t ever be on this<br>
     ARM device<br></blockquote><div><br>right. this could be part of the modules effort from above imo.<br clear="all"></div></div><br>--<br><br> - Alexander<br><br>