From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwcIl-0000CM-T1 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:01:40 +0200 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2012 09:50:00 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="129290838" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.13.51]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2012 09:50:00 -0700 Message-ID: <50195DCC.1080801@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:48:12 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <50183986.1030203@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <50183986.1030203@windriver.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:01:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/31/2012 01:01 PM, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 7/31/12 2:36 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 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. >> >> This would seem to work OK with RDEPENDS += "busybox-static" and just >> adding the extra static bits for for the static version. It seems OK >> except we would/could start to get lots of recipes like this. >> >>> -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. >> >> Are there any mechanism that currently exist for this? We could turn >> on a DISTRO_FEATURE if we knew we were going use lxc, but that's more >> involved than just adding the lxc recipe and getting the right stuff >> in the root file system. > > Kernel config fragment mechanism is there and IMHO works well for something like > this, assuming configuration is using standard > > FOO = value > > # FOO is not set > > kernel semantics.... I've been wanting to get the kernel merge-config mechanism available for busybox for a while. It definitely seems like the right way to go here. It could also really simplify some of the logic in the busybox recipe. -- Darren > >> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best approach here? > > In this case, I don't think it's a distro feature, it's really a package > configuration option -- the assumption is the rest of the system isn't > statically linked. (Our case was that we wanted a static busybox for an initrd...) > >> -M >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel