Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Thierry Laronde
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:31:59AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote: > > The only real downside to uClibc is its limited platform support. > Right now I support x86, arm, m68k, sh, and powerpc. The shared > library loader is very new, and currently only works on x86 (I'm > working on an ARM port ATM).

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Erik Andersen
On Thu May 03, 2001 at 11:02:56AM -0700, Andrew Sharp wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 07:55:40AM -0700, Andrew Sharp wrote: > > > > The only real downside to uClibc is its limited platform support. > > > > Right now I support x86, arm, m68k, sh, and powerpc. The

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Andrew Sharp
Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 07:55:40AM -0700, Andrew Sharp wrote: > > > The only real downside to uClibc is its limited platform support. > > > Right now I support x86, arm, m68k, sh, and powerpc. The shared > > ^^ > > I'm not familia

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 07:55:40AM -0700, Andrew Sharp wrote: > > The only real downside to uClibc is its limited platform support. > > Right now I support x86, arm, m68k, sh, and powerpc. The shared > ^^ > I'm not familiar with the `sh' platform. Did you me

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Andrew Sharp
oesn't have all the power of > vim, but it is only 22k and requires no external libraries. > Sterling Huxley (who contributed the busybox vi applet) did > a really nice job. > > > Has anybody tried to compile other utilities with uClibc ? > > I've been kno

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Erik Andersen
l libraries. Sterling Huxley (who contributed the busybox vi applet) did a really nice job. > Has anybody tried to compile other utilities with uClibc ? I've been known to compile a bunch of things with it. Also check out what Jeff Garzik was able to do http://opensource.lineo.com/lists/uc

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-03 Thread Thierry Laronde
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:01:26AM -0700, David Whedon wrote: > Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:29:11PM +0200 wrote: > > > > Has anybody tried to compile other utilities with uClibc ? > > I have played with uCilbc on debian-installer, never got the complete thing done > though. It would be really neat

Re: Busybox vi

2001-05-02 Thread David Whedon
Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:29:11PM +0200 wrote: > FWIW, I have taken the great work of Erik Andersen and others for BusyBox (not > to mention Bruce Perens for the beginning) and uClibc, and I must say that > I am quite impressed : > > 1) by the size : BB statically compiled against uClibc with vi i

Busybox vi

2001-05-02 Thread Thierry Laronde
FWIW, I have taken the great work of Erik Andersen and others for BusyBox (not to mention Bruce Perens for the beginning) and uClibc, and I must say that I am quite impressed : 1) by the size : BB statically compiled against uClibc with vi is 219 Ko (IIRC 480 Ko with glibc); 2) I found the `vi'