Wooh, has this been laying around for awhile. Sorry for the long
turn-around, I just got a bit busy and couldn't experiment for a week or so.
> At 11:24 PM 08/25/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> >BBox46 seems bigger than toms version with equal options, at least when I
> >compile it. I got 30k, compared to toms which is around 18k.
>
> did you use the strip out options (such as --help files)??? This might
> strip it down more.
The make file already strips the binary, so that's that. I tried to cut it
down to the same options as the old Busybox: it just seems bigger.
> that makes sense, since even if it really is 18K versus 30K, the overhead
> on the other commands should be more that 12K.... the advantage to busybox
> is the combined overhead of one program.
>
> If someone is interested and has time, adding commands to busybox is
always
> worth the effort, since everyone benefits... it's a very popular package
> for small disks.
Well, I was playing a bit with Busybox, and here's the problem: Busybox
commands don't have all the "fun stuff" of their Gnu siblings. A good
example: Busybox ping doesn't have "flood," which doesn't sound that
important, but this weekend I found myself using ping -f to do a bit of
network troubleshooting. It seems a shame to toss the lean & mean Gnu
utilities on tomsrtbt (there are a few) for the strip-down jobs in Busybox.
And, with the added bloat of the new Busybox, it's difficult to recover the
disk space back.
One nice thing about new Busybox is that touch actually creates files, which
is rather handy. It would be nice if someone could back-port that to the
old Busybox.
Douglas Bollinger
Mt. Holly Springs, PA
My other computer runs Linux.
