busybox and small scripting languages on FreeBSD ? (was Re: 80
Mb / enough for 7.x? OK to delete /stand/ and /modules/ ?)
db at db.net
Sun Aug 3 03:16:20 UTC 2008
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 04:38:14PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 04:07:47PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> > Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:39:20AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I've been looking at nanobsd for a couple of applications and working
> >>> to reduce the footprint of the images without hacking special rules.
> >>> compact flash) then we'll need to do a lot of work to pare down the
> >>> bloat--or replace current apps w/ special purpose replacements a la
> >>> busybox (not something I find appealing).
What's wrong with /rescue being used for this?
ls -ltai /rescue
70662 -r-xr-xr-x 121 root wheel 3728352 Jul 22 14:56 [
70662 -r-xr-xr-x 121 root wheel 3728352 Jul 22 14:56 atacontrol
70662 -r-xr-xr-x 121 root wheel 3728352 Jul 22 14:56 atmconfig
Still a little too large?
gzipped it's a little less
-r-xr-xr-x 1 db wheel 1772385 Aug 2 23:11 /tmp/vi.gz
I bet it would be easier to trim down the number of utilities in
/rescue to make a smaller image than to make busybox go.
> >> related to this thread -- does anyone have experience in trying
> >> to build busybox on FreeBSD ?
> > My last experience w/ busybox was >1 year ago and I'm not sure I was
> > using anything close to up to date, but...it was utterly linux-specific.
> > Given what it does and what I saw in the code I'd be more inclined to
> > write one from scratch.
busybox is the worst pile of doggie doo doo I have ever had the misfortune
to see. It should be put into a brown paper bag and set on fire
after putting it on RMS's doorstep and ringing the doorbell.
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
More information about the freebsd-stable