From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eumx.net ([91.82.101.43]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwIps-00051K-IR for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:14:33 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35461 helo=eumx.net) by eumx.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwIed-0007NB-11 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:02:55 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=eumx.net; h=message-id :date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=GRClNO6nGkQ5jqcnngJ7wzjdvuI=; b=ICdLqTC/K/GbAHcWKi65H3xr+HWL c3ZY0CM6Ln1cbJaD8+5pIkzZGDSxmZOzAx1nBVmpz1nWu587ppBFjB+tNNcdeIxa inSlslii29p970AOhB5/eXG5nIkLMNqG1XPeQ3Izhx9utB1fCQ6C6qpu1Qg/gcdI hl/dJSNoKmLqpn0= Received: from cpc2-cmbg15-2-0-cust171.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.26.12.172]:51097 helo=[192.168.1.113]) by eumx.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwIec-0007N8-Mi for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:02:54 +0000 Message-ID: <501839ED.4050004@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:02:53 +0100 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <50183924.8010309@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <50183924.8010309@windriver.com> Subject: Re: static busybox? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: ml@communistcode.co.uk, 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 20:14:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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