[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: BeastieBox, a (Net)BSD BusyBox-like
In other words, maybe the people who designed crunchgen and /rescue
actually had some idea what they were doing?
oh, I didn't meant to offence anyone, I'm just digging, learning, and
pretty glad to find out there was a better way to do what I initiated.
I think it would make a lot more sense to concentrate on:
1) Clean support for alternate lists of executables to crunch, in the
existing build system, so a single build could produce multiple
crunched executables without a lot of tedious list maintenance.
Agree, but what about executables like sh(1) or ex(1)/vi(1) and
probably others having "huge" non-reductible dependencies (ncurses,
libedit...) ? (note this is a real question, better said: "what would you
suggest ?"). For these two, as an example, I ported NetBSD 0.9 sh(1) and
2.11BSD ex(1) that only depends on libterm.
2) Making the existing "let's get small" (-DSMALL etc.) code cut out
more stuff where possible, *particularly* library dependencies.
That's actually what I had in mind when speaking about ifdef's some posts
3) Ensuring that when libc files are built for use by crunchgen they
are built with the options to make them as small as possible: no
compat code, little or no nsswitch support, etc.
Instead of producing a separate busybox imitation for little or no reason
when /rescue already does pretty much exactly what is wanted.
As mentionned in my very first announce, this is/was a for-fun project,
now if there's a need for something similar in NetBSD's base, I'd be glad
to drop bbox's ball to concentrate on something having a meaning for the
And btw :
~$ du -sh /rescue
That's really not the kind of size I have in mind when talking about a
reduced system :)
Emile "iMil" Heitor <imil%home.imil.net@localhost>
http://gcu-squad.org ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
- against HTML email X
& vCards / \
Main Index |
Thread Index |