Embedded initrd with static programs

Embedded initrd with static programs

[Ashwin Bihari]

Greetings,

I'm trying to create a initial ramdisk that will get loaded to perform the
following actions.

With a new (empty) hard drive, create the partitions according to the scheme
chosen, format the partitions as EXT3, get a tarball containing the root
file system, uncompress this tarball and then reboot.

Since I need to create the partitions non-interactively, I've found "sfdisk"
from the util-linux package to do this job for me. For the formatting of the
partitions as EXT3, I'm using "mke2fs" from the e2fsprogs package. The
problem is that programs contained with these two packages are all
dynamically linked.

I found the source for e2fsprogs, but I don't see a setting to be able to
compile the programs statically.

I'm using Busybox compiled statically to provide the basic Unix command set.

So basically I need the other two programs also statically compiled, does
anyone of any idea on how I would go about this??

Regards.

~Ashwin

_________________________________________________________________
Enjoy the holiday season with great tips from MSN.
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Embedded initrd with static programs

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <BAY9-F37onNzN9rvBmW0007186b@hotmail.com> you wrote:
>
> So basically I need the other two programs also statically compiled, does
> anyone of any idea on how I would go about this??

Edit the relevant Makefile and add "-static" to the compiler options?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
"This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an
actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you?"

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Embedded initrd with static programs

[Ashwin Bihari]

> >
> > So basically I need the other two programs also statically compiled,
>does
> > anyone of any idea on how I would go about this??
>
>Edit the relevant Makefile and add "-static" to the compiler options?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Wolfgang Denk
>

Wolfgang,

I finally found the sources for this sucker and have got the e2fsprogs
statically compiled, working on util-linux. Thanks. :)

_________________________________________________________________
Enjoy the holiday season with great tips from MSN.
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

RE: Embedded initrd with static programs

[ARIBAUD Albert]

> So basically I need the other two programs also statically
> compiled, does anyone of any idea on how I would go about
> this??

Mybe I am missing something, but why not use the dynamically
linked versions and include the necessary libraries in the
initial ramdisk?

Albert.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Embedded initrd with static programs

[Martin Hicks]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:06:55PM +0100, ARIBAUD Albert wrote:
>
> > So basically I need the other two programs also statically
> > compiled, does anyone of any idea on how I would go about
> > this??
>
> Mybe I am missing something, but why not use the dynamically
> linked versions and include the necessary libraries in the
> initial ramdisk?

It really depends on how many apps you're including.  If you only need
one app then copying all of glibc in is a waste.  If you've got a bunch
of apps then it's probably better to copy on the shared libs.

On the other hand, if you can get all your apps to compile against
uClibc (or one of the other small libs replacements) then you'll be much
better off.  glibc is huge.

mh

--
Martin Hicks || mort@bork.org || PGP/GnuPG: 0x4C7F2BEE

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Embedded initrd with static programs

[Ashwin Bihari]

>It really depends on how many apps you're including.  If you only need
>one app then copying all of glibc in is a waste.  If you've got a bunch
>of apps then it's probably better to copy on the shared libs.
>
>On the other hand, if you can get all your apps to compile against
>uClibc (or one of the other small libs replacements) then you'll be much
>better off.  glibc is huge.
>
>mh

I only intend to use a very small set of tools to accomplish what I want to.
So I figured I didn't need to bother with the shared libraries. And having
finally gotten all the stuff I needed statically compiled and working, I'm
pretty happy with it. :)

_________________________________________________________________
Get dial-up Internet access now with our best offer: 6 months @$9.95/month!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/