On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 14:10 -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> One of our early efforts, getting busybox
> to not fork commands in init scripts that it had as
> builtins, proved to be a significant feature that is still
> valuable today to improve boot time.
I'd add that one thing we did with Poky's init sy
Hi Darren,
On 16/06/12 00:15, Darren Hart wrote:
> I dont think
> Tim's comment was wrong there. Of course "big system" is subjective, to
> me that's anything over 4 MB of storage and 8MB of RAM, for Tim, that's
> 1 MB of RAM.
Indeed, I was thinking of something like the OpenRisc board
(http://op
On 06/15/2012 02:10 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 12:11 AM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>> A system that runs nothing but a shell is really not useful for anything
>> all, everyone using it will be adding some sort of services, so the
>> question of how the extending works (or does not work), nee
On 06/15/2012 02:26 PM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>
> On 15/06/12 20:49, Tim Bird wrote:
>> On 06/14/2012 11:31 PM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>> IMHO, the whole notion of starting with a big system and
>> subtracting what you don't want in order to create a minimal
>> system is the wrong approach.
>
>
On 06/15/2012 12:05 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:31:45 +0100,
> Tomas Frydrych a écrit :
>
>> Hi Darren,
>>
>> On 14/06/12 22:09, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> This solution improves the kick-the-tires
>>> experience with poky-tiny, without pulling in all of init,
>>
>> I thin
On 15/06/12 20:49, Tim Bird wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 11:31 PM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> IMHO, the whole notion of starting with a big system and
> subtracting what you don't want in order to create a minimal
> system is the wrong approach.
At no point in this discussion was such an approach advocate
On 06/14/2012 12:11 AM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> A system that runs nothing but a shell is really not useful for anything
> all, everyone using it will be adding some sort of services, so the
> question of how the extending works (or does not work), needs to be in
> the forefront of the design. My m
On 06/14/2012 11:31 PM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> On 14/06/12 22:09, Darren Hart wrote:
>> This solution improves the kick-the-tires
>> experience with poky-tiny, without pulling in all of init,
>
> I think you really should quantify what 'all of init' means, without
> this you are
Le Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:31:45 +0100,
Tomas Frydrych a écrit :
> Hi Darren,
>
> On 14/06/12 22:09, Darren Hart wrote:
> > This solution improves the kick-the-tires
> > experience with poky-tiny, without pulling in all of init,
>
> I think you really should quantify what 'all of init' means, with
Hi Darren,
On 14/06/12 22:09, Darren Hart wrote:
> This solution improves the kick-the-tires
> experience with poky-tiny, without pulling in all of init,
I think you really should quantify what 'all of init' means, without
this you are addressing a problem that is merely perceived. Just a quick
On 06/14/2012 12:11 AM, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> On 14/06/12 01:33, Darren Hart wrote:
>> o Do not include the standard Busybox init
> ...
>> o Do not provide inittab functionality
>
> I am not entirely clear what you are hoping to gain by creating a home
> grown init solution?
C
Hi Darren,
On 14/06/12 01:33, Darren Hart wrote:
> o Do not include the standard Busybox init
...
> o Do not provide inittab functionality
I am not entirely clear what you are hoping to gain by creating a home
grown init solution?
A system that runs nothing but a shell is really not useful for a
On 06/13/2012 06:20 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 06/13/2012 06:09 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 5:33 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> For those of you using poky-tiny or are interested in building very very
>>> small systems, I would appreciate your thoughts here.
>>>
>>> Currently poky-tiny
On 06/13/2012 06:09 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 5:33 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> For those of you using poky-tiny or are interested in building very very
>> small systems, I would appreciate your thoughts here.
>>
>> Currently poky-tiny images will boot and run /bin/sh, which results in
>> e
On 6/13/2012 5:33 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
For those of you using poky-tiny or are interested in building very very
small systems, I would appreciate your thoughts here.
Currently poky-tiny images will boot and run /bin/sh, which results in
error messages to the console about being unable to open
For those of you using poky-tiny or are interested in building very very
small systems, I would appreciate your thoughts here.
Currently poky-tiny images will boot and run /bin/sh, which results in
error messages to the console about being unable to open the tty and job
control being disabled (thi
16 matches
Mail list logo
