[yocto] I hate busybox!

[Bob Cochran]

On 09/15/2015 12:38 PM, Romain Perier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I disagree,
> Unfortunately some embedded devices in the industry are not like most
> of the tablets and smartphones in the market (no quad or octo cores
> with few GB of ram... and few GB of flash...)   ;)  .For example,
> these days, at work, we're designing a board with the SoC zynq-7000
> and a quad-spi NOR flash. The NOR only has 16MB... now remove ~2Mb for
> u-boot... 4Mb for the bistream (fpga)... I only have 10MB for my
> kernel and my rootfs.
>
> Embedded projects like uclibc, musl or busybox are very appreciated in
> cases like this one :)
>
> I am not saying that it is a great thing to have busybox built and
> enabled by default, but that is a great thing to be able to use it.
> In fact, it strongly depends on your needs for the target...

Agreed.

I just tack on IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " tar findutils tree etc..." in my 
image recipe when I have the rootfs space, and I want the full tool. 
The build system seems to do a nice job of creating the links properly.


>
> Regards,
> Romain
>
> 2015-09-15 17:39 GMT+02:00 William Mills <wmills at ti.com>:
>>
>> On 09/15/2015 10:53 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote:
>>> On 09/15/15 10:47, Trevor Woerner wrote:
>>>> The only place busybox (and
>>>> toybox) are needed today are in the MMU-less-type systems, such as
>>>> Cortex-Ms etc.
>>>
>>> Actually, the presence or lack of MMU is irrelevant, I meant to single
>>> out those systems with limited on-SoC flash.
>>>
>>
>> OE-core is capable of building a system that has no GPLv3.
>> This capability is still important to some users and busybox is needed
>> for that as I understand.
>>
>> (Other users want the capability to build a system w/o proprietary code.
>>   OE serves both needs.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto