Hi Wolf, On 9 October 2010 23:00, Wolf Tivy <wti...@my.bcit.ca> wrote: > I've been interested in sta.li for a while but luck has been against me. > surf leaks memory or something at maximum speed when I visit the > elevenislouder link on the sta.li website, and hg hangs trying to clone > hg.suckless.org/stali-toolchain. Furthermore, the hg repository hasn't > been touched in 7 months. sta.li is getting unfortunately vapourous.
unfortunately all sta.li efforts are stalled for quite some time now. This is mainly related to my relocation to Munich, changing to a new job and more or less lack of time during the past months. This doesn't mean that sta.li is dead, I plan to carry on with it in the near future. > My fantasy idea of sta.li is simplified archlinux with everything static, > 9base>BSD>GNU and no /usr. I happen to like udev hotplugging and > such so I'm not so keen on getting rid of all that. The current stage is to re-use arch's bootstrapping in a static way for the base system, and to add 9base userland optionally on top of it. > So moving towards that ideal, my first step would be some good > documentation or tools for gettign ABS to build static with bionic or > uClibc or whatever, and then a statically linked pacman repository. > But that's only for the hacked archlinux form of sta.li. That goes further than what I have in mind. There are no plans to re-use ABS at this point, but rather creating a mk-based ports collection. > To do anything with sta.li, we need a static toolchain and good > documentation on using it in other systems. So, to my knowledge, > that involves a decent libc, and probably the ld wrapper from project > ideas. Anything else? We will need uclibc at the least, bionic or dietlibc can be used for certain tools that don't require a fully fledged libc, but we can't work around the fact that we will need uclibc. > Is the ld wrapper as simple as it sounds? Is it just just sneaking > foo.a out the back door when asked to build foo.so and then sneaking > foo.a in the back door when asked to link with foo.so? This is only > needed with retarded build scripts that explicitly check for .so output > right? Someone more skilled than I (possibly me after reading some > docs) could write a script to do that pretty easily I think. It is just that. Working around stupid autohell scripts. But it's not for the base system itself. > The libc seems to be mostly a legal and political issue. Aside from > that stuff, what is it that bionic (or whatever) does not do that it needs > to? Or is it just a matter of figuring out and documenting? It should be straightforward to use bionic for static linking. Bare in mind that bionic has several limitations though. > tl;dr: What is on the critical path of sta.li that isn't being done, and > how can I help? Help in the following areas is very welcome: 1. Demonstrate the ldwrapper idea for building webkit 2. Demonstrate stand-alone static binaries that have been linked against bionic/x86. 3. Develop a mk based ports tree (that contains all optional non-base packages) I would prefer to focus on the archlinux bits to bootstrap the core system in a static way. Cheers, Anselm