stsp at stsp.name
Fri Oct 5 18:24:33 CEST 2007
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:58:34PM +0200, Amadeus wrote:
> On Freitag, 5. Oktober 2007, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Is an extra list of known huge programs more managable than
> > an extra build with a custom vendor config? I don't know.
> Yes, I think so. This list will be pretty small. Because... the internal
> RAM is also small. Only a few selected programs will come into this
> list. It's not HUGE programs, it's "programs with need for speed".
> > I thought this would be a nice opportunity to address both
> > these issues in one go, with seperate builds being the obvious
> > solution, one with GUI and one without, and different rc.default
> > settings (start_pixil="YES" vṡ. start_pixil="NO").
> I don't think that start_pixil and have_extra_ram is the same...
Mmmmh.. I guess that's right, it's not the sane but extra
ram is a prerequisite for pixil and lots of other fun stuff.
At this point I think it would be nice to have a one-size-fits-all
build, see my thoughts about getting rid of DSGBA and NDS in another
mail in this thread. The idea of having two .nds files in the tarball
is great actually because it means we can probably actually achieve
having only a single type of build.
But why did you call it "dslinuxm"? Why not something more descriptive
like dslinux-mem.nds or dslinux-ram.nds? If you want the names to
fix into 8.3 dos filename length I guess we could also use linux.nds
and linuxmem.nds/linuxram.nds or something.
> I have commited the 2 nds-files solution to svn. Let's look how users
> think about it!
> (It was pretty easy to do, and the makefile has needed a cleanup
http://stsp.name PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.dslinux.in-berlin.de/pipermail/dslinux-devel-dslinux.in-berlin.de/attachments/20071005/e3a78ce4/attachment.pgp
More information about the dslinux-devel