Hello, what memory footprint do you mean, the image or the ram ? If I have to run several busybox applets at a time, e.g. sh, inetd, ftpd, telnetd, syslogd ... it would probably be better to load the shared library once and share it by the applets.
May be I am wrong, but the shared library overhead isn't that big at runtime. Especially if several applets are running at the same time. Wolfgang Hauser -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Phil Blundell Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2010 12:26 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [oe] Is there a recipe for building and using busybox with libbusybox out there ? On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:45 +0200, Hauser, Wolfgang (external) wrote: > I want to use busybox with the applet binaries linked against libbusybox > in our system. > We need a wide range of applets at the same time, so I suppose it will > save overall needed memory space. What's the advantage of this? I would have thought it would give you a larger memory footprint rather than a smaller one. I guess I must be missing something. > Also I want to prevent the system from updating alternatives while the > first boot. We have to provide a read only root file system. Yeah, this is a long-standing piece of OE suckage. We should fix the alternative selection to work at image construction time. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
