From owner-freebsd-embedded@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 18 08:22:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2611065673 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:22:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3BB8FC19 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:22:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19C731D4E5; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:05:15 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: +aTo2MudPFCwRTD3UycIBxLtYXCftpFcxZsy1/mO5ziY 1240041915 Received: from [192.168.123.18] (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32CDF2913D; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:05:13 +0100 From: Bruce Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: security References: <49E7AF2B.2020908@jim-liesl.org> In-Reply-To: <49E7AF2B.2020908@jim-liesl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tinybsd- ports question X-BeenThere: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Dedicated and Embedded Systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:22:57 -0000 security wrote: > I'm really torn between nano and tiny. I like nano's ability to skip > the world and kernel builds and the "extra" boot partition. Tiny has a > much more elegant ports handler and is smart about getting the world > binaries from the host. Tiny needs less space, but with flash getting > so cheap, it's less of an important factor for me. I do realize other > embedded uses might find that more important. > [general hand waving] The fact that TinyBSD copies binaries from the host was always what caused me to side-step it; try doing that on a non-i386 machine, or for a non-i386 target. Having said that, it would be really cool if someone could blend the strengths of both into NanoBSD... surely the ports stuff is not too difficult to merge in? The only thing really missing which is needed, sadly, is cross-compilation support -- but you can spend years doing that. OpenEmbedded certainly isn't an answer. You don't need to rebuild everything in NanoBSD at once if you don't want to. cheers BMS