a few short observations on latest BB

[Jason Schoon]

Isn't there a known issue that our dependencies require a "make clean"
whenever switching between configuration to insure the binary rebuilds in
the intended manner, or is that fixed?



On 3/1/06, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:54:36AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 05:19:00AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > >> >  next, there doesn't appear to be any difference in either
> selecting
> > >> >or not selecting "Feature-complete libbusybox".  both generated
> shared
> > >> >lib files that turn out to be exactly the same size.  the only
> > >>
> > >> in libbb/Makefile.in, see
> > >> # conditionally compiled objects:
> > >>
> > >> >difference is that selecting the full featured library creates an
> > >> >extra hard link in the install directory but that's it.  based on
> the
> > >>
> > >> There should be no difference for the installation between the full-
> and
> > >> not full .so
> > >>
> > >> >help message, that's not what i expected.  what difference *should*
> i
> > >> >have seen?
> > >>
> > >> Right now, you'll only see a small difference and only if you didn't
> > >> select any of the "conditionally compiled" applets. This will
> hopefully
> > >> change in the future.
> >
> > >ok, so "full feature" doesn't *really* mean full feature.  that
> > >definitely explains things.  thanks.
> >
> > Perhaps i misunderstand you above..
> > "full feature" means to disregard the actual selected applets (resp.
> > their dependencies) and to just put libbb/*.c into libbusybox.
> > So: "full feature" == everything
>
>   i'm still unclear on what you're saying here, so let me give you an
> example.  i took a clean BB source tree and did the following:
>
>   $ make allnoconfig
>   $ make menuconfig
>
> and additionally selected to build a shared busybox library.  given
> that i selected as little as possible, i would have guessed that the
> resulting shared lib would be fairly small, right?  and it's size was,
> in fact, 52424 bytes.
>
>   at that point, i reconfigured the build to be "feature complete" and
> the resulting shared lib was *exactly* the same size.
>
>   finally, i did
>
>   $ make allbareconfig
>
> and rebuilt the shared lib *without* "feature complete", at which
> point that library was 130380 bytes, the same size as when i then
> rebuilt *with* "feature complete."
>
>   i'm willing to believe that i just don't understand what the
> selection of "feature complete" means but, whatever it means, it
> clearly doesn't mean what it would lead someone to believe.
>
> rday
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060301/0c810fc6/attachment-0002.htm