From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id CB239E00D4B; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:30:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [74.55.86.74 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from smtp.webfaction.com (mail6.webfaction.com [74.55.86.74]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8DDE00A80 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (c-73-194-208-34.hsd1.nj.comcast.net [73.194.208.34]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A41B20780AA; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:30:45 +0000 (UTC) To: Trevor Woerner , Romain Perier , William Mills References: <55F82F8A.0@gmail.com> <55F830DF.5030804@gmail.com> <55F83B9D.3020002@ti.com> <55F84EFE.7080002@mindchasers.com> <55F861DF.2090508@gmail.com> From: Bob Cochran Message-ID: <55F871E0.6080102@mindchasers.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:30:40 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55F861DF.2090508@gmail.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: I hate busybox! X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:30:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/15/2015 02:22 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On 09/15/15 13:01, Bob Cochran wrote: >> On 09/15/2015 12:38 PM, Romain Perier wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I disagree, >>> Unfortunately some embedded devices in the industry are not like most >>> of the tablets and smartphones in the market (no quad or octo cores >>> with few GB of ram... and few GB of flash...) ;) .For example, >>> these days, at work, we're designing a board with the SoC zynq-7000 >>> and a quad-spi NOR flash. The NOR only has 16MB... now remove ~2Mb for >>> u-boot... 4Mb for the bistream (fpga)... I only have 10MB for my >>> kernel and my rootfs. >>> >>> Embedded projects like uclibc, musl or busybox are very appreciated in >>> cases like this one :) >>> >>> I am not saying that it is a great thing to have busybox built and >>> enabled by default, but that is a great thing to be able to use it. >>> In fact, it strongly depends on your needs for the target... >> >> Agreed. >> >> I just tack on IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " tar findutils tree etc..." in >> my image recipe when I have the rootfs space, and I want the full >> tool. The build system seems to do a nice job of creating the links >> properly. > > This is merely an example of the exception being taken for the norm/default. > > You'd be hard-pressed to find many boards that don't have an SD or > microSD slot for your bootloader, kernel, and filesystem image. And > you'd be hard-pressed to buy an SD/microSD card less than 8GB now-a-days. > > Even amongst boards that have on-board flash, most of them have 1GB or > more with 4GB being quite common: Right, but I want to use FLASH to store a lot of nonvolatle R/W data, not just applications, libraries, and the kernel, so a couple GB doesn't go very far. Do you know offhand how much bigger the rootfs would be if you build core-image-base without busybox and instead use the real applications? Also, how many more packages have to be built / managed? Thanks > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers#I.2FO_interfaces_and_ports > > In any case, choice in deciding what goes into an image is good. I > simply think that, now-a-days, basing all images on busybox (and having > the option to swap some out) is rather quaint. The problem is: your > image doesn't have "ls", it has "busybox's ls". And your image doesn't > have "ps", it has "busybox's ps"... and those aren't the same. In most > cases I want the "real" utilities (the ones I've spent that last 20 > years using) not some crippled version. > > Ideally the basic OE images would be based on the real utilities (i.e. > the images that get built by default and tested by the Yocto Project's > QA machinery), and there would be a core-image-minimal-busybox (and > core-image-minimal-toybox) provided in those vanishingly rare cases > where they might be needed. Instead of the current situation where > busybox is the default, and some images swap out some of its components > for the real ones. >