[BusyBox] supported targets

[Erik Andersen]

On Thu Jan 25, 2001 at 04:08:45PM -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> 
> > Please do not take this as a slight against you, Larry ...
> 
> No, I understand completely.  The patch did its job -- it clarified
> the discussion.  Plus, if someone jumps out of the woodwork next
> week and says "BusyBox 0.49 doesn't work on my uClinux-powered
> toilet paper dispenser because my stack is too small" we know
> what to tell him.  (Starting with, "why didn't you mention this
> last week ...")

ROTFL!

Ha!  Actually, I did go ahead and drop in the patch.  It hurts
nothing to include it, and may even help with the uClinux-powered
toilet paper dispenser market. :-)

> >    arches: x86, ARM, MIPS, SH3/4 (I think)
> >    libcs: libc5, glibc, uClibc
> >    kernels: Linux 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 (unless someone says otherwise)
> 
> That's a good start.  I think this should be documented.

Let us add a few where I also know busy is currently in use
with the Debian boot floppies: m68k, Alpha, sparc

> Let me add a few details and questions:
> 
> archs:  most code is architecture neutral.  The exceptions are:
>       insmod:  only x86, ARM, SH3/4
>       mkswap:  anything supported by Linux 2.2.0pre9
> 
> libcs: libc5, glibc, uClibc (what about newLib or diet libc?)

I have heard rumors of diet libc working.  I have never sucessfully
gotten newlib to run, so I can't speak for it.

> kernels: Stock Linux 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 (what about uCLinux 2.0, 2.4?)

I would like to also support uCLinux, but right now, only part of
busybox will work -- that parts that do not use fork().

> It looks like there is residual arch specific code left over from
> the sources from which BusyBox was assembled, including special
> treatment of sparc and alpha.
>
> Who is the "customer" for the fake_sparc handling in uname.c?
> Can and should that code be generalized?

Hmm.  That is certainly leftover.  I don't know of anyone using it.

> When was the last time the __sparc__ code in init.c and loadfont.c
> was tested?  When was the last time the __alpha__ code in dmesg.c
> and syslogd.c was tested?

That stuff was put in, courtesy of the poor souls beta testing busybox
for the Debian boot floppies nearly a year ago.

> Is #if #cpu(sparc) really the right test for choosing old termio?
> (cmdedit.c, more.c)

On the pragmatic side, it does work.  I don't know of a better test.

> After these questions are clarified, I propose including some of
> this material in the README.

Excellent.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--