a few short observations on latest BB

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:54:36AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 05:19:00AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>> >  next, there doesn't appear to be any difference in either selecting
>> >or not selecting "Feature-complete libbusybox".  both generated shared
>> >lib files that turn out to be exactly the same size.  the only
>>
>> in libbb/Makefile.in, see
>> # conditionally compiled objects:
>>
>> >difference is that selecting the full featured library creates an
>> >extra hard link in the install directory but that's it.  based on the
>>
>> There should be no difference for the installation between the full- and
>> not full .so
>>
>> >help message, that's not what i expected.  what difference *should* i
>> >have seen?
>>
>> Right now, you'll only see a small difference and only if you didn't
>> select any of the "conditionally compiled" applets. This will hopefully
>> change in the future.

>ok, so "full feature" doesn't *really* mean full feature.  that
>definitely explains things.  thanks.

Perhaps i misunderstand you above..
"full feature" means to disregard the actual selected applets (resp.
their dependencies) and to just put libbb/*.c into libbusybox.
So: "full feature" == everything

The "non-full" version means that IFF somebody did add more/all to
# conditionally compiled objects:
LIBBB-$(CONFIG_FEATURE_MTAB_SUPPORT)+= mtab.c
LIBBB-$(YOU_NAME_IT)+=whatever.c
and remove whatever.c from "LIBBB-y:= one.c another.c whatever.c"
then only the functions which are actually _used_ are built into
libbusybox.

HTH,