[BusyBox] An historic moment!

[Erik Andersen]

On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 01:11:51PM +0300, Vladimir N. Oleynik wrote:
> 
> > Can dietlibc compile busybox and other real applications?
> 
> YES! :)
> 

Cool!

> > Sure, I can do static libs too (though it looks like I have 4 bytes
> > more overhead for the same trivial application -- I had to add in a
> > few useless things to make the shared lib loader happy).
> 
> If static size is smallest with compare dynamic linked 
> application + size lib, best usage static and put lib for other
> applications.

Sure.  There, sometimes it is a win to use static libs, which is why I am happy
I can now do both.  On a larger system, it is very likely to be a win to use
shared libraries (especially if the shared library is trimmed down to only
provide the symbols required by the applications in the system using mklibs.sh
or lipo).

> Oh, sorry. Your work is authoritarian and very slow! :(

What?   Listen.  I am sorry I have been slow at getting your patches committed
to CVS recently.  I have been slow at everything recently.  I have been in
Sweden for the last week and a half working 18+hour days.  In fact, I have been
terribly busy with my job for the entire Christmas holiday.  I havn't even seen
my family for about 2 weeks and I just missed the birthday party for my 4 year
old daughter.  I'm living in a hotel with very infrequent net access.... 

You must understand that I have a job, and my job is not working on busybox or
tinylogin or uClibc.  My job is professional services work, and I have a
customer with a very tight deadline that has been taking up all my time.

If you are angry that I have not included your patches -- well, I am sorry.  
I had been hoping that one of the other busybox developers would check then 
in.  Would you be happier if you have CVS commit access, so you can commit 
patches yourself?

 -Erik

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