Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

> > If not, do you want to compile uclibc-static busybox 1.1.0 for us?
>
> Maybe. I would want to apply some bugfix patches first. Do you
> want to compile it? busybox is easy to compile: just download
> and unpack it in the uclibc root, chroot and read the directions
> in INSTALL (essentially, make menuconfig, then make and you
> will get a working busybox binary). Don't forget to answer Y to
> static compilation if you want to use it on BL3.

I downloaded the .tar.gz and unpackaged it and read INSTALL.

It said you could make allbaseconfig for basic menu options so I tried 
doing that in BL2 with glibc 2.2.5, hoping to get a dynamic version that 
would work in BL2 and BL3 with this library upgrade (which I added anyway 
for Opera).

Make could not find /bin/pwd.  Our pwd is part of busybox, which I 
replaced a while back with static busybox 1.01 in /busybox101 (on the path 
instead of the earlier busybox).

I symlinked it:  ln -s /busybox101/pwd /bin/pwd.  It told me 'Too many 
levels of symbolic links'.

I copied busybox 1.0.1 (static?) to /bin and symlinked 'busybox' to that 
instead of the BL3 busybox I had been using with BL2. It still cannot find 
/bin/pwd.  The symlink that I copied with cp -a points not the 
/bin/busybox but still to /busybox101 so I remade it in the /bin directory 
to point to busybox (which in itself is a symlink to busybox101).  It 
still says /bin/pwd is a directory.  ls -F shows busybox to be a 
directory.  I think this is how BL2 was set up.  I renamed the busybox/ 
directory and copied over the libc busybox-1.01 to /bin and symlinked 
busybox to it and am trying again.  /bin/pwd 'permission denied'.
chmod +x busybox.  I think now I have a busybox setup similar to what BL2 
started with (but dissimilar to BL3?).  There should be symlinks to the 
busybox programs in other directories, as expected, leftover from BL2.

No complaints this time about pwd but:
No rule to make target 'allbaseconfig'.  Stop.
The INSTALL file said to 'make allbaseconfig' for basic programs.  I don't 
want to tackle menuconfig yet (with choices).

So I tried making full busybox:
'make allyesconfig' 
That worked for a while until:

sed:  invalid option --i.  And some instructions about sed.  We have 
/usr/bin/sed 3.02 from bin.tgz (SW7.1) - do I need a newer bin.tgz from 
SW81? The same sed is in /usr/bin and /bin (this one was added later, I 
wonder why).  There is also a busybox sed which has option -i (edit 
files-in-place).  The one in /usr/bin and /bin does not.  I will try using 
it instead.  I will be surprised if BL2 still works after I finish 
butchering it like this.

make allyesconfig just worked !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope BL3 uses busybox sed.

'make' just got stuck using Busybox 1.01 ar.
ar cru ....

So I tried /usr/bin/ar instead.  It is older but bigger.

I removed the /bin/ar (busybox ar symlink).  It is compiling.....  but got 
stuck on hdparm.  HDIO_SET_BUSSTATE undeclared (along with quite a few 
other things about HDIO and BUSSTATE).  I could try a make without hdparm, 
assuming it needs a later glibc to build.  Can I hand-edit .config?

I just changed the y to n in the HDPARM section.  .config looks very 
similar to the one for the kernel.

Now it conked out making fuser:  value computer is not used, 'mypid' 
undeclared.  'success' undeclared.  I don't think I need a fuser, whatever 
it is.  We don't have one in BL2. CONFIG_FUSER=n

It made ash and fbset and exited at fgetsetflags.o.  Stop.
I have no idea where that is in .config and am giving up.  STOP

INSTALL definitely says to 'make allbaseconfig' but Makefile has a line 
about 'allbareconfig', that makes all applets without any options. 
Should I report this problem with INSTALL to the busybox people?

Make allbareconfig:  trying to assign nonexistent symbol 0
Buffer allocation policy - I have to choose 1-3 (default 2).
I am choosing all defaults.  Some qusetions about deb and SuSv2 .... ?

It got stuck again on hdparm.  I spent a week figuring out how to 
configure the kernel and that was at least designed to work with SW71 gcc 
and glibc, once I configured it.  I give up for a while.


I have not tried using uclibc to compile yet. I somehow thought it would 
be easier with glibc and gcc from SW8.1.

One uclibc busybox that someone (Stephen Clement?) compiled had several 
non-usable programs (mv etc.) so I was avoiding it if possible.