Baslinux mailing list

["David Moberg" <davidjmoberg AT gmail.com>]

Lee Forrest wrote:
> <quote>
> Adding a C compiler to BasicLinux This requires a minimum of five
> packages (which fill 120mb of HD space). Most of this space is
> filled by the glibc2 library, which is much larger than the old
> libc5 library (used in BasicLinux 1.8).

BL3 also uses libc5.

> installpkg binutils.tgz     ##  d1
> installpkg egcs.tgz         ##  d1

egcs == Experimental GNU Compiler...?

> installpkg glibc.tgz        ##  d1

libc5 takes up much less space.

> installpkg gmake.tgzd1      ##  d1
> installpkg linuxinc.tgz     ##  d1

The lx2216.tgz or similar kernel package (below) contains the same
headers as linuxinc, but in source format.

> To compile a Linux kernel, two further packages are required
> (which fill an additional 74mb of HD space). The first is the
> kernel source and the second is an assember to make the boot
> sector.
>
> installpkg lx2216.tgz     ##  k1
> installpkg bin86.tgz      ##  d1
>
> </quote>
>
> So. If that's the minimum libraries needed to compile apps and
> the kernel, then that's the minimum libraries needed to make BL
> fully functional, right?

Sure, if by "fully functional" you mean having everything necessary to
compile a new kernel image. (BTW, the lx2216.tgz package is for kernel
2.2.16. If you are using BL3.40 and want to rebuild its kernel, you
will want the linux-2.2.26.tar.gz or bz2 package from www.kernel.org
instead.)

> Can any of that be discarded? Do you need all the binutils,
> for example?

Most source packages require as, ld, ar, and ranlib. Several also use
nm (for examining binaries) and strip (to remove debugging symbols). I
think the rest are useful if you are writing source code but not if
you just compile and run source packages.

There is a basic ar included with BL3, but it does not work for
compiling. I think it is mainly used to unpack debian archives.

> All of glibc2?

If you are compiling for BL3 or BL1, you can just use the libc5 devel
library package. It is much smaller than glibc. The only problem is
that it lacks functions that a few modern source packages require (at
least, without some modification to libc5 or the new package). If you
avoid large, complex apps it should work well. Kernel compiling is
independent of libc version (but heavily dependent on gcc).

(Do you still want me to reply to both the list and your gmail address?)

David