[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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
PingOO, serveur de com sur distribution GNU/Linux: http://www.pingoo.org

Reply to: