On 06/25/2018 11:01 PM, Michael D. Setzer II wrote: > I went ahead and built a static version of busybox, but it increase the size > by > about 900K. > > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1280672 Jun 26 08:46 busybox > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 383700 Jun 26 08:12 busybox.save
It's expected that static builds are slightly bigger, they incorporate an extra copy of libc as the price you pay for being able to still work on systems that don't have libc at all. It's still quite small... Note, that if you wish to decrease the size there's a lot you could do to configure it. $ ls -l /bin/busybox -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1025792 May 27 12:17 /bin/busybox* This is built with musl instead of glibc, and with most optional features enabled. You could get it a lot smaller, but... that depends on which features you need. > Seems there should be a way to find what libraries might be used if ldd > doesn't list them?? Have other programs that also use libc.so.6, so it needs > to be included for them? There were about 60 total libraries that were not > listed by ldd (Many are the various link files to the library). If ldd doesn't list them, it is because dlopen() is being used. If dlopen() is being used, either you used GNU libc, which plays mind games with you by using dlopen() when you don't expect, or, your own code uses dlopen(). With no protection. dlopen() is more commonly used in things like vim, which can dlopen() python, perl, ruby, tcl, lua etc. to provide scripting support, but if those libraries aren't there then vim will just keep working but with those features disabled. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
