Hi, Stefan <stefan-g...@vodafonemail.de> writes:
> I took inspiration by the live-bootstap project, it seemed easier to use > musl. And compare the dependencies of musl and glibc. > > musl¹ > (native-inputs (inputs-with-shell GASH-bootstrap > MAKE-MES-bootstrap > GASH-UTILS-bootstrap > BOOTAR-bootstrap)) > > glibc² > (native-inputs (inputs-with-shell BASH-bootstrap > GZIP-bootstrap > GREP-bootstrap > GAWK-bootstrap > PYTHON-bootstrap > GCC-15-bootstrap > TAR-bootstrap > BINUTILS-bootstrap > BISON-bootstrap > GETCONF-bootstrap > COREUTILS-bootstrap > SED-bootstrap > MAKE-bootstrap)) > and $LINUX-HEADERS-bootstrap > > True, some tools may be replaceable, like tar and gzip with Bootar and > Gash-Utils. But already sed from Gash-Utils is not sufficient, neither awk. > And Python is a real blocker, static builds seem not to be supported anymore > in 3.13.7. All these dependencies need a C library (even dynamic linking) > and the one from Mes is really limited. Interesting, thanks for explaining. I suspect Python is only needed for relatively recent versions of glibc, but still. As for the other tools (coreutils, sed, gawk, etc.), I wonder if these are needed due to deficiencies or missing features in their Gash-Utils counterpart. > I'm convinced that a mature C library with least possible dependencies is the > key for a short bootstrap chain. Yeah, that makes sense. > So no, the nested functions haven’t even had a chance to become an obstacle. Heh. :-) (And I think they’re gone in recent versions.) Thanks! Ludo’.
