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

Re: Busybox vi

Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Wed May 02, 2001 at 04:29:11PM +0200, Thierry Laronde wrote:
> > FWIW, I have taken the great work of Erik Andersen and others for BusyBox (not
> > to mention Bruce Perens for the beginning) and uClibc, and I must say that
> > I am quite impressed :
> Thanks.  :-)
> > 1) by the size : BB statically compiled against uClibc with vi is 219 Ko
> > (IIRC 480 Ko with glibc);
> > 2) I found the `vi' emulation far better and far easier to use than, say, `ae';
> It is a pretty complete vi.  It doesn't have all the power of
> vim, but it is only 22k and requires no external libraries.
> Sterling Huxley (who contributed the busybox vi applet) did
> a really nice job.
> > Has anybody tried to compile other utilities with uClibc ?
> I've been known to compile a bunch of things with it.  Also check
> out what Jeff Garzik was able to do
>     http://opensource.lineo.com/lists/uclibc/2001-March/000630.html
> At work, I am currently assigned to get uClibc integrated into
> Lineo's SDK (you can think of that as a sortof graphical Debian
> autobuilder with lots of choices for what you build).  This means
> that I basically need to make sure that _everything_ compiles with it.
> The only real downside to uClibc is its limited platform support.
> Right now I support x86, arm, m68k, sh, and powerpc.  The shared
I'm not familiar with the `sh' platform.  Did you mean sparc?

> library loader is very new, and currently only works on x86 (I'm
> working on an ARM port ATM).

Reply to: