Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 16-09-15 18:43, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Mike Looijmans "Embedded" in my world is not about RAM or disk size. It's about building a device that has a set task in life, and nothing is as important as that one task. Whether that's running on an i7 or an M3 is irrelevant. For a system to

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 16-09-15 03:13, Khem Raj wrote: On Sep 15, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote: On 09/15/15 04:26, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: My embedded system has enough room in it for full-featured command line tools,... "Embedded" in my world is not about RAM or disk size. It's about

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: > Do you mean systemd or syslinux? none of these it was typo it should be read as 'systems' -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com] > > Generally when you have systemd which copy images to RAM and then run > from RAM would not want that extra 50 odd Megs gone > for storing extra tools in some case. Do you mean systemd or syslinux? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: > If you've got a 1GB eSSD drive, because that's the smallest you can buy, > having a 382MB image rather than a 346MB image isn't a waste of anything. > How much boot time increase do you think you'll get from

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

> From: Bob Cochran > > Do you know offhand how much bigger the rootfs would be if you build > core-image-base without busybox and instead use the real applications? > > Also, how many more packages have to be built / managed? I just added packagegroup-core-full-cmdline to my image, and it

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > > On 09/15/15 04:26, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: >> My embedded system has enough room in it for full-featured command line >> tools, instead of the wretched busybox. Does the Yocto meta-data include a >> layer that provides

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

> From: Paul Eggleton [mailto:paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com] > > core-image-full-cmdline (and the packagegroup it uses, > packagegroup-core-full- > cmdline) should give you the former, and the full tools will > in almost all > cases take precedence simply by being installed by virtue of >

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

> From: Khem Raj [mailto:raj.k...@gmail.com] > > I agree on busybox differences but sometimes its not about > the utilities they are needed for some sundry work. > What would be interesting to know is how much size increase > is caused by replacing all busybox functionality > with other

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 09/15/15 13:01, Bob Cochran wrote: > On 09/15/2015 12:38 PM, Romain Perier wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I disagree, >> Unfortunately some embedded devices in the industry are not like most >> of the tablets and smartphones in the market (no quad or octo cores >> with few GB of ram... and few GB of

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 09/15/2015 12:38 PM, Romain Perier wrote: Hi all, I disagree, Unfortunately some embedded devices in the industry are not like most of the tablets and smartphones in the market (no quad or octo cores with few GB of ram... and few GB of flash...) ;) .For example, these days, at work, we're

[yocto] I hate busybox!

My embedded system has enough room in it for full-featured command line tools, instead of the wretched busybox. Does the Yocto meta-data include a layer that provides such tools? Or does OE? And how would I disable busybox in order to use the better tools? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

Hi Paul, On Tuesday 15 September 2015 01:26:20 Paul D. DeRocco wrote: > My embedded system has enough room in it for full-featured command line > tools, instead of the wretched busybox. Does the Yocto meta-data include a > layer that provides such tools? Or does OE? And how would I disable >

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

Hi all, I disagree, Unfortunately some embedded devices in the industry are not like most of the tablets and smartphones in the market (no quad or octo cores with few GB of ram... and few GB of flash...) ;) .For example, these days, at work, we're designing a board with the SoC zynq-7000 and a

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 15 September 2015 at 09:45, Paul Eggleton wrote: > core-image-full-cmdline (and the packagegroup it uses, > packagegroup-core-full- > cmdline) should give you the former, and the full tools will in almost all > cases take precedence simply by being installed by

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 09/15/2015 10:53 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On 09/15/15 10:47, Trevor Woerner wrote: >> The only place busybox (and >> toybox) are needed today are in the MMU-less-type systems, such as >> Cortex-Ms etc. > > Actually, the presence or lack of MMU is irrelevant, I meant to single > out those

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 09/15/2015 02:22 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: On 09/15/15 13:01, Bob Cochran wrote: On 09/15/2015 12:38 PM, Romain Perier wrote: Hi all, I disagree, Unfortunately some embedded devices in the industry are not like most of the tablets and smartphones in the market (no quad or octo cores with

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 09/15/15 04:26, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: > My embedded system has enough room in it for full-featured command line > tools, instead of the wretched busybox. Does the Yocto meta-data include a > layer that provides such tools? Or does OE? And how would I disable > busybox in order to use the

Re: [yocto] I hate busybox!

On 09/15/15 10:47, Trevor Woerner wrote: > The only place busybox (and > toybox) are needed today are in the MMU-less-type systems, such as > Cortex-Ms etc. Actually, the presence or lack of MMU is irrelevant, I meant to single out those systems with limited on-SoC flash. --