| 1 |
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 18:27, Nicholas Jones wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> Maybe I've just not seen this, but what sort of footprint does |
| 3 |
> >> portage leave on embedded systems with low cpu/ram? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Python is pretty heavy itself and with the caching portage is |
| 6 |
> doing, it's a lot for a short-reseourced machine. My P100 with |
| 7 |
> 74M ram handles it ok though. It can use upwards of 60M of ram. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It's starting to get hacked up. Hopefully we'll have it quite |
| 10 |
> a bit more tightened up inside the next couple months. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > I believe the best approach is to extend catalyst into building |
| 13 |
> > stripped-down images, while still maintaining a separate development |
| 14 |
> > environment. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That would be my recommendation. Using ROOT from an alternate |
| 17 |
> system. I'm pretty sure how most of that is done right now. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The big issue is crosscompiling. As we will need to get part of that going for |
| 20 |
multilib systems we might be getting somewhere soon. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paul |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 28 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives