On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> Jack Coates wrote:
>
> [speaking of Portage, a version of the BSD ports tree for Linux]
> > That would rock, speaking as one who's been bitten by many an
> > rpm-related problem... Does picoBSD have anything like that? Could be a
> > good place to raid
Jack Coates wrote:
[speaking of Portage, a version of the BSD ports tree for Linux]
> That would rock, speaking as one who's been bitten by many an
> rpm-related problem... Does picoBSD have anything like that? Could be a
> good place to raid.
I don't believe so. I did run PicoBSD for a little
> >
> > * Portage - this is used by Gentoo, and basically brings a form of the
> > FreeBSD ports tree to Linux. The concept is this: you change into a
> > directory, perform a "build", then the system fetches the source file
> > and compiles it for your environment. This has the benefit of
> > c
> > Also, I'd prefer to make a system flexible enough to handle:
> >
> > Base utilities...choice of:
> > "Standard" binary
> > BusyBox
> > asmutils
> > shell-script (POSIXness or similar)
> > omitted entirely
> >
> > Libraries...choice of:
> > ulibc
> > glibc (various versions)
> > newlib
> > othe
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> The part to 'get' about using an off-the-shelf distribution aimed at
> embedded development is the tool chain. The typical embedded distribution
> installs on top of some other system...most support a wide variety of linux,
> and even Windows NT/2000 using the GNU c
-
From: Charles Steinkuehler
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/13/2001 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Leaf-devel] New Development Platform?
> This talk recently of other development platforms (Hard Hat and
> BlueCat) made me think about this.
>
> The original was Debian, as that was what was
I think Charles' POV is a good one. If we know most of
the core requirements of LEAF (eg, floppy-based, BusyBox, uLibC,
.deb and .rpm support, easy cross-compiling, etc) it shouldn't
be too hard to roll our own distro, and specify our own development
platform as *seperate* things. I don
> This talk recently of other development platforms (Hard Hat and
> BlueCat) made me think about this.
>
> The original was Debian, as that was what was used, and it supported
> glibc 2.0 in Slink. It later became clear (to me anyway) that any
> glibc-2.0 based Linux should do, such as Red Hat 5.
This talk recently of other development platforms (Hard Hat and
BlueCat) made me think about this.
The original was Debian, as that was what was used, and it supported
glibc 2.0 in Slink. It later became clear (to me anyway) that any
glibc-2.0 based Linux should do, such as Red Hat 5.2 or Linux
