samba4 just shrank again ...

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:00:07PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> Well, it depends on how small your embedded box is :)  The OpenWrt
> project still provides Samba 2 packages because it's much smaller than
> Samba 3 and every little bit helps when you only have 4MB of flash.
> The version of Samba 3 they package is 3.0.24, but for broadcom 47xx
> based devices the package is under 700k.  I haven't checked what it
> contains, exactly:

> http://downloads.openwrt.org/backfire/10.03.1-rc3/brcm47xx/packages/samba3_3.0.24-7_brcm47xx.ipk

> Of course, if you're running Samba it probably means you have access
> to some other storage and then why not just install Samba there?  I've
> never had the need to install Samba on an embedded device, though, so
> maybe someone really does have a reason for needing Samba to be
> smaller than 45MB.

Embedded systems are not the only cases where the disk footprint of samba
makes a difference.  Samba as a file sharing solution is a much better value
proposition for live CD distributions if it doesn't cause the distribution
to no longer fit on the CD. :)  (I'm not talking about a single-purpose
system, here, but a desktop on a CD... space is definitely at a premium in
such a setup, and every bit counts!)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20101014/7cf75b9e/attachment.pgp>