Re: Busybox vi
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:01:26AM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:29:11PM +0200 wrote:
> >
> > Has anybody tried to compile other utilities with uClibc ?
>
> I have played with uCilbc on debian-installer, never got the complete thing done
> though. It would be really neat to use on d-i. I've thought about, once d-i is
> back in full swing, making it work with uclibc on as many archs as possible.
> That would mean packaging it and tricking the buildd's into building udeb's for
> use wiht uclibc. That would be sneaky.
At the moment, for needs that we have (a on interactive, the more automatic
possible installation), I have planned to use BB statically compiled against
uClibc, say 'sash' as a shell, and only shell scripts, mainly for hardware
detection (there is already one Bourne Shell script doing that, but we are
removing any invocation of `awk' --- not in BB --- and `lspci' --- not really
needed). I must say that the installation OS is as minimal as possible : it
only detects and executes orders given by a more bigger "source" (this can
be supplementary files on a CD, or a server (this is the server which
takes the "decisions", builds the ad hoc kernels and root fs, the
installation OS having to retrieve, via tftp --- in BB --- and installs the
files).
But I think indeed that, in the future, if we need more complex programs,
trying to compile them against uClibc is something that is worth the effort.
--
Thierry LARONDE, Centre de Ressources Informatiques, Archamps - France
http://www.cri74.org
PingOO, serveur de com sur distribution GNU/Linux: http://www.pingoo.org
Reply to: