Re: static busybox?

[Jack Mitchell <ml@communistcode.co.uk>]

On 31/07/2012 20:59, Mark Hatle wrote:
> 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.

I like this, Busybox is one of the more complex recipes and a way to add 
and subtract config options without keeping your own copy in sync would 
be nice.

Regards,
Jack.

>
> --Mark
>
>> Thanks,
>> Stuart Yoder
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core