Re: A tiny patch for env.sh & busyelks.

Re: A tiny patch for env.sh & busyelks.

[Marc-F. Lucca-Daniau]

Hello,

The 'busyelks' is try to apply the same recipe as BusyBox, from Jody 
Bruchon.

It is currently unmaintained, and kept archived until someone would like 
to to resume his work.

MFLD


Le 04/02/2020 à 14:15, Marcin Laszewski a écrit :
> Yes, you are right!
>
> I have compiled sucessfuly ELKS many times and it was my first
> defeat... sorry for my confiusion.
>
> I've noticed there were 'busyelks' directory. Is it used now?
>
> 2020-02-01 11:46 GMT+01:00, Marc-F. Lucca-Daniau <mfld.fr@gmail.com>:
>> (...)
>> You should rather type the command: ". tools/env.sh" (with a space
>> (...)

Re: A tiny patch for env.sh & busyelks.

[Jody Bruchon]

I ran into some problems, specifically with the size of things. There is 
no shared library support in ELKS, so merging several tools to enable 
code sharing makes a lot of sense in ELKS. Unfortunately, at the time, 
ELKS had serious problems running even the most basic of command-line 
programs properly, such that even logging in would sometimes fail 
perpetually. Things should be much better today, but I didn't feel like 
working on it any longer. It would work if someone with a little C 
coding skill massaged it a bit. The biggest challenge is keeping the 
binaries small enough.

On 2/4/2020 1:33 PM, Marc-F. Lucca-Daniau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The 'busyelks' is try to apply the same recipe as BusyBox, from Jody 
> Bruchon.
>
> It is currently unmaintained, and kept archived until someone would 
> like to to resume his work.
>
> MFLD
>
>
> Le 04/02/2020 à 14:15, Marcin Laszewski a écrit :
>> Yes, you are right!
>>
>> I have compiled sucessfuly ELKS many times and it was my first
>> defeat... sorry for my confiusion.
>>
>> I've noticed there were 'busyelks' directory. Is it used now?
>>
>> 2020-02-01 11:46 GMT+01:00, Marc-F. Lucca-Daniau <mfld.fr@gmail.com>:
>>> (...)
>>> You should rather type the command: ". tools/env.sh" (with a space
>>> (...)

Re: A tiny patch for env.sh & busyelks.

[LM]

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Jody Bruchon <jody@jodybruchon.com> wrote:
>Things should be much better today, but I didn't feel like
working on it any longer. It would work if someone with a little C
coding skill massaged it a bit. The biggest challenge is keeping the
binaries small enough.

It's a really interesting project.  I'm working on something similar
for some other platforms.  I don't think I could write anything
efficient enough to suit this project.  However, if anyone does pick
up development, I would love to compare notes, design ideas and
algorithms for doing this sort of thing.

Re: A tiny patch for env.sh & busyelks.

[Georg Potthast]

Hi Laura,

I think ELKS would need additional memory support beyond 1 MB to properly 
support busybox and further applications. ELKS could add support for the 
80386 processor for that.

Georg

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: LM
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:11 PM
To: ELKS
Subject: Re: A tiny patch for env.sh & busyelks.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Jody Bruchon <jody@jodybruchon.com> wrote:
>Things should be much better today, but I didn't feel like
working on it any longer. It would work if someone with a little C
coding skill massaged it a bit. The biggest challenge is keeping the
binaries small enough.

It's a really interesting project.  I'm working on something similar
for some other platforms.  I don't think I could write anything
efficient enough to suit this project.  However, if anyone does pick
up development, I would love to compare notes, design ideas and
algorithms for doing this sort of thing.