From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1.windriver.com ([147.11.146.13]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SwePw-0003xu-OR for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:13 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q71J5XoO013213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:05:33 -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; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:05:32 -0700 Message-ID: <50197DFA.5070003@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:05:30 -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: <50183924.8010309@windriver.com> <50195AFF.1070507@windriver.com> 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:17:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/1/12 1:59 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:36 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 > > This is one approach, to change busybox completely for a specific > added layer. But, what if we only want to make this change to busybox > if the lxc recipe is included in the image? What about other packages > also requesting changes? There is no method within OE to change a configuration of one item, if another item is included or not. The way to do this is use the PACKAGECONFIG options, and then pass via a per-recipe configuration if you want lxc support enabled or not.. (or possible lxc becomes a distro flag?) --Mark > -M > >> --Mark >> >> >>> Stuart >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >