From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwcKL-0000Eo-QK for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:03:18 +0200 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2012 09:51:38 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="129291468" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.255.13.51]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2012 09:51:36 -0700 Message-ID: <50195E2C.1090706@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:49:48 -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: <50183924.8010309@windriver.com> <50195AFF.1070507@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <50195AFF.1070507@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 17:03:18 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/01/2012 09:36 AM, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 8/1/12 11:21 AM, Stuart Yoder wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Bruce Ashfield >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:59 PM, 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. >>> >>> merge_config.pl can be yanked out of the kernel source tree (it's upstream) and >>> packaged as something for use by busy box. >>> >>> I wouldn't recommend all the scaffolding that the kernel has (it's >>> overkill, since >>> there are more configs, patches and git manipulations in play for the >>> kernel), but a\ >>> simple scheme to collect the fragments from the SRC_URI and fire them through >>> merge_config.pl would be a pretty simple python routine. >> >> So how would this work from the user's point of view? I somehow >> need to get busybox's CONFIG_STATIC config option set. Does the lxc >> recipe somehow >> specify this? Or does the lxc recipe reference a busybox-static >> dependency that sets the option? > > You would be able to add a .bbappend that would have a configuration fragment in > it. This fragment would be added to the busybox configuration to override any > built in items. > > So you'd need to simply have a file that says: > > CONFIG_STATIC = y Exactly. And merge_config is a .sh, no perl required :-) -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel