Re: removal of the mount_links (was: CVS commit: src/sbin)

[Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> I disagree here. On i386 thats an extra of 797096 bytes, which is a lot for
> small devices like flash cards.

Where did you get that number?

> ls -l /sbin/mount* | awk '{print $5, $9 }'
14424 /sbin/mount
8116 /sbin/mount_ados
7200 /sbin/mount_cd9660
6852 /sbin/mount_ext2fs
6276 /sbin/mount_fdesc
6884 /sbin/mount_ffs
7828 /sbin/mount_filecore
6280 /sbin/mount_kernfs
8324 /sbin/mount_lfs
40512 /sbin/mount_mfs
8564 /sbin/mount_msdos
14208 /sbin/mount_nfs
8368 /sbin/mount_ntfs
6756 /sbin/mount_null
6504 /sbin/mount_overlay
17096 /sbin/mount_portal
6728 /sbin/mount_procfs
6884 /sbin/mount_ufs
8164 /sbin/mount_umap
7044 /sbin/mount_union

Ignoring mount_portal (which was separate before too), mount_mfs
(which is hardlink to newfs), and mount_ufs (which is hardlink
to mount_ffs), the amount of consumed space is some 150K, which
is roughly 100K more than before. This would be even less
once/if getmntopts would be moved to libutil.

I don't think the 100K difference is a problem. If it is, don't
put the stuff you don't need on the flash.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek%NetBSD.org@localhost>            
http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-