Edward King wrote:
Kris Adcock wrote:
Good evening all!
Does anyone here have comments about good (or bad) minimalist Linux
distros, on which to intall a Framebuffer-configured Nano-X project? I
want to build a mini-ATX Linux box on which will run my
Framebuffer-based project, and I want to have the install as
trimmed-down as possible (I just need Framebuffer and network support,
really). To begin with it'll be installed on one of those "flash" IDE
units (that hold 512MB) but I'm hoping longer-term to build a PXE
image for network transfer.
I could fight with my usual choice of distro (SuSE) and see what I
can strip out to get it down to a sensible size ... but I figure that
this must be a task that others here have battled with.
Any comments?
Kris.
Kris,
in my own case, I went through several "minimal" distributions and also
through the process of stripping my own favourite (Slackware) to the
bare-bones.
Neither of those approaches was particularly efficient as it only got the
image down to around 300megs. The absence of general package dependency
information prevented me getting it any smaller than that so I tried an
alternative route:
TTYLinux lets you start off with the absolute minimum and you can
build up
from there. It gives you basic networking tools and enough commandline
stuff
for you to be able to wget or ftp sources or packages and install
them, plus
user admin stuff. A basic install comes in at around 12 megs (in my own
experience).
My image including the basics plu my own programs and libraries is now
80megs, a saving of 220megs over a "minimal" install of any of the other
distros (including linux from scratch).
However, in order to achieve this, I have been running two systems
side by
side, one Development version and one target version. Recompiling the
kernel for a minimalist distribution is a very good idea because there
is no
doubt significant amounts of chaff in there that you really dont want or
need.
Linux from scratch is a good way to learn how to build from the
"ground" up
as it is pretty well documented, and although it includes many
packages you
dont need for a truly minimal install, you can include these in your
development image and exclude them for your target device image.
Edward
p.s if your target is X86 based and you dont mind some additional steps
later on, I found doing all this inside of virtual PC or VMware made my
"proof of concept" stage run a lot faster and smoother. Just remember
that
the hardware you get in virtualPC is different to the hardware you'll be
using on your development unit!
openwrt.org
angstrom-distribution.org
openwrt.org in particular can be made to run in < 4 MB. Add to that the
300K or so for nano-x and you have something that can be put on minimal
hardware. And the development system is pretty easy to figure out.
angstrom is much more developed for embedded PDA type hardware. It
weighs in at a 'heavy' 100 MB or so. I have had some issues with
bitbake in the past, but I have to admit that the most recent versions
actually play nice with debian lenny.
--Yan
--
o__
,>/'_ o__
(_)\(_) ,>/'_ o__
Yan Seiner (_)\(_) ,>/'_ o__
Personal Trainer (_)\(_) ,>/'_ o__
Professional Engineer (_)\(_) ,>/'_
Who says engineers have to be pencil necked geeks? (_)\(_)
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young
to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now,
she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press
away from the Internet?'"
--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
