Le 12/08/2017 à 05:37, Adam Borowski a écrit :
I'm building a GNU+Busybox Linux OS with all applications
statically linked against Musl libc. It is for fun and will never
replace a distro; and it is very time-consuming actually.
... You can tinker on your home desktop, which is nice for
development and for exploring new ways, but it's not something for an
average user, nor anything that has a place anywhere nearby a production
machine. If I deploy a server, I can run a git version of its main service,
but the system's base is supposed to be well integrated already.
Gnu/Linux is almost never assembled from scratch in reality. It is
built from a full-featured and recent Gnu/Linux development platform.
When you want everything recompiled from scratch, say when porting to a
new arch or linking against another libc, there is a bootstrapping
problem. I tried LFS several years ago. The manual and the patches had
taken so long to the authors to work-out that all packages were very
outdated. In addition the version based on Musl libc (which I was
willing to build) was not working AFAIR.
There's a reason LFS is a curiosity rather than something for everyday use,
despite its undeniable educational value.
I now have, in a chroot, a functional development platform, meaning
I have passed the bootstrap phase and everything is now much easier. All
commands are statically linked except Python. It took me 4 years partial
time, with a lot of periods in which I was totally discouraged. I
haven't documented all the steps, but the system can recompile itself
entirely from the official sources. I didn't start from LFS but from a
mix of Aboriginal and Debian and it was tricky because I wanted that my
gcc understand Ada; it has Ada, C, C++, Java, Objective-C and
Objective-C++ (I only speak the first two).
I plan to use this system to experiment how X.Org and Mdev can play
together - still need to build X.org :-) . I prefer experimenting in
this simple environment to not be encumbered with package-related
things, eg Udev.
Dng mailing list