[Toybox] CI for toybox

[Rob Landley]

On 02/15/2012 02:54 PM, roger at bufferoverflow.ch wrote:
>> What does your build environment do?
>
> At the moment I do
> - sloccount
> - cppcheck, probably splint as a future option
> - build with gcc, clang and arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc
> - run testsuite for gcc and clang built binaries

Cool.  Does it build ok with clang?  I haven't got that set up here.  (I
might finally get a bionic build environment set up this weekend.
Fingers crossed...)

>> I'm feeding toybox into my aboriginal linux build, which creates the
>> smallest/simplest native development environment capable of rebuilding
>> itself under itself:
>>
>>   http://landley.net/aboriginal/FAQ.html
>>
>> It actually builds the same system for a dozen different targets (arm,
>> mips, powerpc, sparc, sh4, etc) and then boots most of them under qemu
>> so you have a native build environment without having to buy special
>> hardware.
>
> I will definatly have a look on that!

I need to write up better documentation for it, but every time I sit
down and try... there are 8 gazillion different things it _could_ be
used for.  Hard to summarize.  (Even my email in this thread describing
it was kinda long...)

The most comprehensive I've come up with is the giant presentation, 260
slides available online or a giant (90 meg) PDF:

http://speakerdeck.com/u/mirell/p/developing-for-non-x86-targets-using-qemu
http://landley.net/aboriginal/downloads/presentation.pdf



>> P.S.  I still vaguely want to get the package list down to four
>> packages: "compiler, libc, kernel, toybox". I had a tinycc fork for the
>> first (http://landley.net/code/tinycc and
>> http://landley.net/code/tinycc/qcc), and yes this means I'd need to add
>> "make" to toybox, but it _is_ in the SUSv4 utility list.  No point until
>> I get a non-gcc/binutils compiler, though...)
> 
> That's the same I look for, at the moment I have the following
> components in mind:
> 
> compiler    http://llvm.org/
> kernel      http://www.kernel.org/
> libc        http://www.sourceware.org/newlib/
> libc++      http://libcxx.llvm.org/
> coreutils++ http://landley.net/code/toybox/

llvm being implemented in C++ sets my teeth on edge, but since I haven't
got a better alternative...

> I would like to have a *liberal OS* where the user or distributor can
> define most parts of what free is;-)

Um, the BSDs exist?

(I'm fairly certain of this, haven't particularly used them since a
couple quick boots in the 90's where I went "yup, the gui sucks, no
drivers for any of my hardware, why are there no loopback mounts, ps is
not liking the flags I have memorized, I haven't really got spare disk
space for this..."  I tried opendarwin and solaris indiana a couple
years back, but neither of them liked qemu's emulated keyboard
controller for some reason...)

Rob