i just install OpenWrt 24 and i can not belive how big packages became like almost all of them became up to 20! times biger than in version 21 ? Why is that so ?
Please use forum search... this question has been asked many times in the past.
2 Likes
i really did ,no results i even serch in google and AI said it is all because of luci interface but i dont belive it is all becous of luci inteface
1 Like
What search term should the OP use?
1 Like
i understand that fimware became bigger it is normal like because oif new kernel new drivers luci became a litle bit heavier but like other pakeges they became like 20 times biger that is what i dont understad
I must apologize -- after I made my comment, I did try to search for the relevant posts and I couldn't find the right search terms... it is, apparently, hard to find some/most of the threads that would address the question.
And... since the question really is about the packages and not as much the base firmware, a developer might be able to provide more specific reasons for the increase in size since it is related to, but not directly caused by the increase in the kernel size.
3 Likes
Here are some older posts that touch on the topic. You may find these of interest.
2 Likes
I would suggest to raise concrete examples for your perceived 20-times package size increase.
Just as a first approximation, the default firmware images are made up from a few dozen of installed packages, while those have certainly grown between 24.10.x and 25.12, their size increase is much more gradual and nowhere near 20 times.
8 Likes
Here 500 examples for your enjoyment Strange library sizes (multiples of ~64 kB)
5 Likes
I'm aware of that, and so far that appears to be uninvestigated - however, that doesn't necessarily mean image size (runtime installed packages on the overlay are more likely to be) is affected, given the compression factor of these.
Compression is not factored in in pre-install checks. Less packages for users....
One possible explanation below. Due to an upstream change in the ELF binary linking strategy in binutils. Sounds plausible to me.
I dont see x86/64 padded to a gigabyte.
The first link (28824 – relro security issues) in the post provides the answer to that.
The solution
============
Always end the relro segment on a MAXPAGESIZE boundary, except for
x86.
this should be the explanation for the problem:
That is a complete cow output, mprotect manual page claims mprotect granularity is PAGESIZE, and the later polio patches does not change that.
Possible fix for the binutils linker causing larger package sizes is on the way
3 Likes