Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:43:23 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: bms@incunabulum.net Cc: freebsd-embedded@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tinybsd- ports question Message-ID: <20090418.094323.1723177110.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net> References: <49E7AF2B.2020908@jim-liesl.org> <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net>
Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> writes:
: 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.
I have patches that make this work, except for one thing. It doesn't
do the shared library dependencies however, since ldd doesn't work on
non-native architectures.
: 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.
Both NanoBSD and TinyBSD can do cross building. However, the problem
is that this cross building only works for the base system. Ports
need some help...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090418.094323.1723177110.imp>