On 7/31/12 2:36 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Stuart Yoder <b08...@gmail.com> wrote:
We are doing some work with LXC (containers) and one of the templates
is for busybox. For LXC, the busybox package needs to be built statically and
there is a config option for this.
A couple possible approaches:
-create a new 'busybox_static' recipe that the lxc package
depends on that turns on the needed build options. Pretty
straightforward, but now there are 2 variants of the busybox
package.
This would seem to work OK with RDEPENDS += "busybox-static" and just
adding the extra static bits for for the static version. It seems OK
except we would/could start to get lots of recipes like this.
-somehow propagate some configuration options through to
the standard busybox recipe so it turns on the config
option to build things statically. Not sure how to
do this, and seems like it could get pretty messy.
Are there any mechanism that currently exist for this? We could turn
on a DISTRO_FEATURE if we knew we were going use lxc, but that's more
involved than just adding the lxc recipe and getting the right stuff
in the root file system.
Kernel config fragment mechanism is there and IMHO works well for something like
this, assuming configuration is using standard
FOO = value
# FOO is not set
kernel semantics....
Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best approach here?
In this case, I don't think it's a distro feature, it's really a package
configuration option -- the assumption is the rest of the system isn't
statically linked. (Our case was that we wanted a static busybox for an initrd...)
-M
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
