Re: BeastieBox, a (Net)BSD BusyBox-like

[David Brownlee <abs%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, iMil wrote:

> Agree, but what about executables like sh(1) or ex(1)/vi(1) and probably 
> others having "huge" non-reductible dependencies (ncurses, libedit...) ? 
> (note this is a real question, better said: "what would you suggest ?"). For 
> these two, as an example, I ported NetBSD 0.9 sh(1) and 2.11BSD ex(1) that 
> only depends on libterm.

        Well, there is always /bin/ed for a small editor (45K on i386 5.0)

> As mentionned in my very first announce, this is/was a for-fun project, now 
> if there's a need for something similar in NetBSD's base, I'd be glad to drop 
> bbox's ball to concentrate on something having a meaning for the NetBSD 
> project.

        I think your best result might be improving -DSMALL for some of
        the binaries from rescue, but for a few pulling in other sources.
        Of course any -DSMALL work helps almost everyone using NetBSD
        in embedded work and even people trying to fit install binaries
        on small media or memory systems :)

> And btw :
>
> ~$ du -sh /rescue
> 7.4M    /rescue

        That seems very high - are you sure you don't have an old binary
        from something lying around there - my i386 5.0 system reports
        4.4M (Not that that is tiny, but...)
        What does "du -shc /rescue/*" report?

--
                David/absolute       -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --