[BusyBox] It's the preprocessor, stupid

[Thomas Lundquist]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:40:34AM -0700, Mark Whitley wrote:
> 
> Consensus is building... Methinks we will do a 0.50 "what 0.49 should have
> been" release.

good.

> 
> Thanks! Added to list of known projects. You'll see it toward the bottom of
> the busybox.net webpage.

cool.

(and if the name wasn't making the project obvious, it's a 
 "firewall on a floppyfw" :=)

> > and on the busybox/netkit-tiny/tinylogin - thing, I vote
> > "yes, let's put them all together and have a nice and simple
> > configure system for it."
> 
> Consensus is likewise building on this front...
> 
> Lemme ask you a question Thomas: Would you like to be able to have one binary
> that does it all? Shellutils, netutils, login-schtuff and everything?

well, I am discussing this heavily, with myself.

pros: all in one, less overhead.
cons: floppyfw don't need login and stuff so I'd probably make that
      an available package, so then I don't really need it.

but then I could just make two busybox-binaries, one for the extra package
and one for the base. and I'd save "one part overhead" by having
two instead of having to have netkit-tiny also.

and it would make it alot easier to tailor the two separate packages.

so I guess, after this debate, still with myself, I am all for.

> There is no such thing as a small glibc.

:=)

well, I started using LRP's glibc but then Debians 2.0.7 was down to
640'ish K and I could live with it and have decent space left for
packages. 

so I'm used to it. 

2.1.3 is now 880'ish K and it's livable too, altho with the 2.4 kernel
it's quite tight.

using UPX on the kernel helped tho, seems like that's no problem.
<URL:http://upx.tsx.org> pretty nice little thing. it's an 
executable-compresser that can compress vmlinuz and ELF binaries
and some others. cute thing.

> Having said that, there is the mklibs.sh script that Matt Kraai mentioned. You
> might also look at uClibc. (http://cvs.uclinux.org/uClibc.html)

That's been on the usual CVS update when I update busybox but
I haven't started using it yet.

it's like the reason I started using glibc 2.1.3, the users don't
have to keep some "weird libc-devkit" on their machine to make
packages for it. it has helped and I have some maintainers for 
special purpose packages, like PPP and PPPoE which is very popular.

(this sounds like Coyote, freesco, LRP and so on but when
 I started developing this thingie there were nothing using
 ipchains and, then 2.1 kernels. I can't stop now.. )

but I am testing it out from time to time just to see how it
works out. mostly I have problems compiling this myself.. 
(but that's probably saying more about me than uLibc)

> > well, I'll go back to lurker mode again.
> 
> Post anytime, Thomas.

opps, I did it again.


Thomas.