sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
- Date: 29 Nov 2002 02:14:45 -0500
Busybox doesn't do bash scripts. It's not an option. It's options for
tar and stuff are slightly weird too from what I've heard.
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 01:39, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:41:33PM -0500, Dufflebunk wrote:
> > There has been a small amount of discussion about making the binaries
> > that the sorcery scripts depend on static. This would solve problems
> > when upgrading (glibc ('lockexec not found' anyone?), gettext, ...). I
> > don't know how big the binaries get, but I'll list as many of the
> > programs I can think of. Does anyone have any idea of how much more
> > space having them all staticly compiled would take? Are there any other
> > cons to doing this?
> >
> > ls, cut, awk, sed, grep, find, tar, gzip, bzip, lockexec, cat, ps, true,
> > false, md5sum, rm, mv, file, sort, date, mkdir, rmdir, tail, nice,
> > sleep, echo, column, basename, dirname, chmod, touch, wget, mount,
> > umount, bash (may have its own versions of these programs, but I'm not
> > sure: sleep, nice, echo, mkdir, nice, rm, mv, touch).
>
> I think many of these could be provided by busybox
> (http://www.busybox.net). Actually, if i skim over the list and the one
> at http://www.busybox.net/downloads/BusyBox.html, the only ones that
> seem to be missing are lockexec, bzip2, awk and bash.
>
> If we don't go with busybox, size still shouldn't be too much of a
> problem if we strip the binaries.
>
> --
> Arwed
> aka alley_cat
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3327A9A5
F1
F1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/28/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.