From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwImd-0001WW-Vl for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:11:12 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q6VJxXtJ006143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Marks-MacBook-Pro.local (172.25.34.39) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:59:33 -0700 Message-ID: <50183924.8010309@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:59:32 -0500 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: static busybox? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:11:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/31/12 1:14 PM, Stuart Yoder wrote: > We are doing some work with LXC (containers) and one of the templates > is for busybox. For LXC, the busybox package needs to be built statically and > there is a config option for this. > > A couple possible approaches: > > -create a new 'busybox_static' recipe that the lxc package > depends on that turns on the needed build options. Pretty > straightforward, but now there are 2 variants of the busybox > package. > > -somehow propagate some configuration options through to > the standard busybox recipe so it turns on the config > option to build things statically. Not sure how to > do this, and seems like it could get pretty messy. > > Any thoughts? We've been talking about this as well.. I'm currently of the opinion that the kernel's config fragement processing be added to busybox. This way someone can simply add a configuration fragment via a bbappend, or other approach and it'll pick it up. That same can be used to specify how to enable other optional pieces of busybox. --Mark > Thanks, > Stuart Yoder > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >