Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!umich!sharkey!aucis!gillham From: gillham@andrews.edu (Andrew Gillham) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: (size of distribution) Message-ID: <673996233wkn20976@edmund.cs.andrews.edu> Date: 11 May 91 21:10:33 GMT References: <53341@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Reply-To: gillham@edmund.cs.andrews.edu.UUCP (Andrew Gillham) Organization: Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan Lines: 25 In article <53341@nigel.ee.udel.edu> wjb%cogsci.COG.JHU.EDU@vm1.nodak.edu writes: > You could consider shipping object files rather then binaries for >all executables not needed for the installation of the system. The >installation process could then link them as it copies them over to the hard >disk. For executables that have multiple object files, linking them >together and resolving all references outside the standard library might be >useful. I don't know if this would save space or not. It depends on the >relative sizes of the symbol table vs. functions pulled in from the >libarary. If only external references were left in the symbol table though, >I think it would be a win. The advantage over implementing shared libraries >is that it doesn't require any OS changes. > > Bill Bogstad I posted my message before I read this one, honest! I wonder how much space this would save? -Andrew -- =========================================================================== Andrew Gillham "High Ideals are weighed down by Andrews University the Anchors of Reality" (gillham@andrews.edu) - myself