Re: BuildRoot like tool
Actually E. Andersen managed to build a full debian in there (but
but only natively. If we can do the same with the modified tools we
maybe do this natively and cross-compiled.
If this project intends to ignore "deeply" embedded systems, I am very
disappointed. In that case this is little more than supporting Linux
Mac or Sun with the elimination of documentation.... Not very useful
That is where the emdebian info would be usefull for. Not only solving
cross-compilation problems, but also further reduce the footprint if
The default "throw away docs" procedure enables us to build smaller
packages easily and quickly and is just there for more rapid software
IMHO for deeply embedded systems you can better turn to uclinux. (this
of course on what you mean with deeply embedded)
My definition of deeply embedded us a flash based system. ucLinux is
appropriate for non-MMU systems, otherwise the standard Linux
implementations are fine. This does bring up a good point about target
I was happy to see that uclibc was used in Stag for ARM processors. I
personally believe that we should standardize on uclibc, or something
similar, with the goal of achieving the smallest footprint possible.
It was also the basic idea to do the compiling for uclibc by default.
possible as Andersen has proved.... But leave the flexability to use
something else if you wish. If we would do the compiling in a uclibc
environment like Andersens buildroot we would at the same time (without
reworked packages) reduce size by removing crufty docs and using a
libc. After this we could refine the packages with the emdebian/rules
So I hope you do not feel left out :-) This is a more thought out
I do not feel left out. Clarification is good!