| 1 |
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 22:57 +0100, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm currently working on patch busybox udhcpc to support --env, which seems |
| 3 |
> like the sensible solution to that problem. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Why not use the patch I made for Gentoo? |
| 6 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/net-misc/udhcp/files/udhcp-0.9.9_pre20041216-env.patch?view=markup |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > If you need some input on how to use runlevels from baselayout-2 with |
| 10 |
> > init from bb, I have described my setup in the thread mentioned above. |
| 11 |
> > Otherwise I have an absolute minimal system with only uclibc, busybox |
| 12 |
> > and baselayout-2 (and of course the kernel :-) ), which is altogether |
| 13 |
> > around 3MB. |
| 14 |
> I did the same (only added dropbear) and ended up at around 8MB. Did you |
| 15 |
> disable a lot of busybox options to get so small? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > Concerning creation of dirs you mentioned. I never had the problem, |
| 18 |
> > using standard runlevel startup (sysinit, boot and default) for booting. |
| 19 |
> Yeah, that's what I see now as well. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > On the other hand, once I tried to start one script inside of chroot |
| 22 |
> > during building of the rootfs and then I got messages about missing |
| 23 |
> > dirs, too. But since I do not normally start scripts during building, |
| 24 |
> > this is not really a problem for me. |
| 25 |
> It stopped being a problem for me too, but the rc program could be slightly |
| 26 |
> modified to make it a bit more robust. I won't have the time to prepare a |
| 27 |
> patch, though. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Attached is a patch to correct this. Ugly, but will do for the time |
| 31 |
being. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Roy |
Archives