From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wade Berrier Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:48:50 -0600 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] Remove readline for which In-Reply-To: <20080805200557.GM9208@mx.loc> References: <20080805200557.GM9208@mx.loc> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi, On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Bernhard Fischer wrote: > Hi Wade, *, > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 01:44:50PM -0600, Wade Berrier wrote: >>Hi, >> >>I've patched 'which' to not require readline on the source level >>instead of selecting it on the buildroot dependency level. > > I suggest you try to get that fixed upstream so they do allow for > ./configure --disable-readline-and-yes-i-really-do-not-want-it I saw some changes in their 'NEWS' implying not wanting to depend on readline any longer, so I'm wondering if this slipped through on a bash update. (ie: which 2.16 doesn't depend on readline, whereas 2.19 does). > > Short of that, why don't you use busybox in the first place? > > I'm really curious how big your "fixed" which binary is? > > Mine looks like this, perhaps your's is smaller? > $ size debianutils/which.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 211 0 0 211 d3 debianutils/which.o > > Just to give you some background: buildroot is ment to serve as an > environment for uClibc. That's it's primary goal AFAIU. Second, it's > ment to serve as an easy way to get you a _small_ filesystem (thus using > busybox targeted at uClibc). > > There is really no reason why .._HIDE_OTHER is visible to a casual user > since it's not ment to be actually used, but just to test uClibc, in my > POV. Please, just set BR2_PACKAGE_BUSYBOX_HIDE_OTHERS=y in your toplevel > .config. The system I'm working on isn't as concerned with filesystem size. I'm upgrading to a recent buildroot (mainly for a toolchain and kernel upgrade) and need to keep the package selection as close as possible to the original configuration from a few years ago. Nonetheless, I do appreciate the background information and explanations. >> >>Patch attached. > > As said. Re-read the patch. Send it to the maintainers of "debianutils" > and understand why they will most likely reject it in it's current form. > HTH, > As above, I think this reference to readline slipped through. I'll go see what they say. Thanks! Wade