[Aboriginal] ulfs-bootstrap, shrinking LFS.
onefang at gmail.com
Fri Apr 1 07:04:43 PDT 2011
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:44:12 -0500 Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 03:08 AM, David Seikel wrote:
> > ulfs is my effort to shrink LFS down, mostly to suit my own
> > purposes, by using the stuff that already exists in Aboriginal
> > linux.
> I need better documentation, I'm just not sure where to put it.
I saw your tags thingy, but it did not match up with what I ended up
with. Or saw how your tags should be used.
> However, that's the sort of thing that could easily open "the distro
> can of worms" which I'm trying very hard not to do with this
> project. Of course if somebody ELSE wanted to take that over... :)
I'm not volunteering, I got enough work to do. Only dabbling in the
stuff I need to, and contributing back what I can.
> > no need to replace the tool chain we already got,
> In the LFS bootstrap script I never bothered to build the new
> toolchain. I built its prerequisites, but skipped gcc and binutils.
> (I _do_ rebuilt make, for no readily apparent reason.)
Yes, I built make to, then removed it after the first draft of my email,
which is why it was still on my list in the email. I forgot to remove
it from the list.
> Bash I'm installing a newer version of. The old 2.04b is easy to
> build and less than 1/3 of the size of the current monstrosity, and I
> really want to replace it all with busybox hush. But you need
> current bash in order to run gentoo's portage, it uses stuff like ~=
> that old bash hasn't got, and depends on the subtly changed quoting
Gentoo I'm not interested in. LFS and BLFS I am interested in, but
only for those packages I need for the current project. A later
project that will grow out of this will need more from BLFS. I still
wont be interested in gentoo.
> Readline there's a bsd-licensed replacement I'd prefer to use out of
> sheer spite for the FSF, and idealy busybox should export that
> functionality anyway.
I'd like to look at that readline replacement, though I'd be just as
happy to not need it for my current project.
> Don't get me started on autoconf/automake.
Preaching to the converted, I was glad to get rid of it.
> pkg-config is its own horror (you do NOT improve on the rpm vs dpkg vs
> ebuild situation by ADDING YET ANOTHER... grumble) and either not
> having it installed or setting PKG_CONFIG=/bin/true is my preferred
> choice, butI got tired of fighting with some package builds.
The UI library I want to use makes heavy use of pkg-config, so for me
> But the point is, lots of BLFS work just fine under uClibc. And I'm
> hoping to get more under uClibc-1.0. (In fact, once we've got NTPL
> and TLS I'd like to treat aborigininal Linux as the /tools system and
> build a new glibc based system natively, just so I don't ever have to
> worry about cross compiling glibc. It requires perl to build. You
> may barf now.)
I have a strong stomach. :-P
Though uClibc is good for me.
> You have to remove make from the package-list (it's currently in
> there), but yes, you shouldn't need it.
Left in the email by mistake.
> > First problem, iana-etc needs the real gawk, it uses fancy options
> > that the busybox awk does not support. So put gawk back in.
> Poke the busybox gawk maintainer about that.
I may just cut iana-etc down to the few ports I actually need for this
project. The next project will need it for sure. I've not actually
looked at what iana-etc uses gawk for, but it does smell of overkill to
just create two text files. Why not just ship the two text files?
> > Second problem, autoconf stops part way through asking the user a
> > question when using busybox instead of coreutils. A quick
> > investigation seems to point to the busybox mv command needing to
> > know if it's OK to overwrite a file, when the coreutils one just
> > overwrites it without asking. There may in fact be some deeper
> > root cause for this problem, I did not look deeper. See next step
> > for why.
> I'd poke busybox about that.
Well, it became moot the moment I removed autoconf from the mix. Also
no point poking busybox unless I bother to dig deeper, which I have no
intention of doing for a package I'm happy I don't have to include
> Not that I really have time to do so, but eh. If I copied hush and
> started cleaning that up and extending it, I might get a reasonable
> bash replacement THAT way...
That would be good.
> > Grub was left off for the same reason it was left out of
> > lfs-bootstrap.
> I've never really addressed bootloaders, or installing stuff on real
> hardware. It's too system-specific, and QEMU's -kernel option allows
> me to handwave past the issue entirely for my use cases. :)
Though in the end I will use grub legacy as it's now known in this
project. The real hardware will have to be booted somehow.
> > Bash and readline where removed. We already have an older bash as
> > part of aboriginal linux.
> Which doesn't work with portage, so I needed newer bash as part of the
> gentoo bootstrap anyway.
Already mentioned I don't need to care for gentoo. Not like anyone is
using LFS to bootstrap gentoo, and this is the LFS bootstrap we are
> > Readline is only in LFS as a dependency of bash.
> > Time will tell if this is a bad move.
> I was erring on the side of building more packages rather than less on
> the theory that if I could get it to build, anything that actually did
> need it could then use it, and driving more cybermen across the board
> would find more digits of pi, or something like that. ("Used to drive
> sheep across minefields. The principle's the same.")
True. On the other hand, one of the goals of this project of mine is
to provide a government testing lab with something for them to audit,
including the development system that we use to build it all, so that
the lab can build it to. The less they have to deal with, the better
we will be. So at a later stage I'll very carefully pull out as much
stuff as I can to pare it down to the bare minimum. Simple
minimisations are good enough for this early in the project. Get it to
work first, then optimise away more crap later.
It's a personal goal of mine that the development system we hand to the
audit lab is just the device itself, and a hard drive they plug into
the device that has the development environment on it. This is why
Aboriginal Linux's ability to compile itself is important to me.
> yacc/bison is something mathematicians like and which I personally
> find conceptually unpleasant.
There might be something using bison that is important to me later.
I'll know for sure later.
> > I guess iconv was left out as it's just bloat that is not needed if
> > you are not doing any internationalization, for the same reason
> > gettext-stub is used instead of gettext in lfs-bootstrap. I think
> > gentoo have a stub version of iconv they are working on, but the
> > above was easy to do and worked for me. I'm not doing
> > internationalization either.
> My 2010 blog (http://landley.net/notes-2010.html) has a lot of hits
> for iconv.
I may grep that soon.
> On the Hexagon I built the x11 client libraries and managed to build
> xeyes and xboard and rxvt and a couple other things. There was some
> hacking around uClibc but they were using 0.9.30 rather than 0.9.31 so
> lots of it was backporting stuff...
Trying to avoid X this time around, that's for the next project. For
this project I think the kernels framebuffer is good enough, and helps
a lot with the "minimal code for the audit lab to worry about" goal
nicely. No need to worry about adding 50 X packages when all I need is
a framebuffer that already comes with the kernel.
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Aboriginal