On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Joshua Murphy <poiso...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Rogelio Serrano
> > Busybox's VI implementation does a fairly good job for that role, and > with Busybox comes lighter weight but 'good enough' replacement > options for many other tools too (whether built against uclibc or > glibc), but it's been a while since I looked at how well it plays with > hardening. > > -- > Poison [BLX] > Joshua M. Murphy thats it! busybox and a few other packages is good enough to be cross compiled into a complete system that can be booted up and native build the rest of the system. the ony issue i had the last time i worked with busybox was with type enforcement. it needed to be selinux aware. the main problem with cross compiling is autotools. its just hostile to cross builds and me. only gcc binutils and libc works well with sysroot. -- quarq consulting: agile, open source -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
