From owner-freebsd-embedded@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 18 15:44:29 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 71EB01065732 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:44:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC688FC1D for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:44:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n3IFgPso069136; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:42:29 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:43:23 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20090418.094323.1723177110.imp@bsdimp.com> To: bms@incunabulum.net From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net> References: <49E7AF2B.2020908@jim-liesl.org> <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii 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 15:44:32 -0000 In message: <49E989B9.8080007@incunabulum.net> Bruce Simpson 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