busybox as dynamic lib

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 20 February 2006 1:21 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > ...
> > Anyway, once standalone is in, the dynamic library allows some of the
> > lost space from the different packaging choice to be reclaimed, by
> > letting the individual apps share some common code.  It's still not as
> > efficient as the one-big-binary approach, but it's another packaging
> > choice (like building a static binary) that gives people more options.
>
> Is there any time schedule for this feature?

No, but I've received several expressions of interest and a patch floated by 
earlier (although I'm not sure I like the approach, have to look more 
closely).

> On my Embedded SELinux journey I just learned that I need certain
> binaries stand-alone in order to apply the policy correctly (e.g. init
> or the modutils). Splitting up an existing .config and running make +
> further scripting stuff on those fragments sounds like some work, and I
> don't like to start this right now when there are alternatives in sight.
> Maybe I could even invest some of the gained time in a generic solution
> for busybox...

I posted some "make standalone" code over a year ago.  A few other people have 
come up with other theories on how to do it (specifying a different entry 
point to the linker instead of a #define in an attempt to avoid the wrapper, 
which means that you don't have bb_applet_name set properly and no you can't 
just handwave your way past that if you want things like error_msg_and_die in 
libbb to work right.)

> Jan

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.