Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:15:17 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Compiling latest busybox with latest musl On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:12:23PM +0200, Tim Tassonis wrote: > On 08/08/2014 10:51 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:30:32PM +0200, Tim Tassonis wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> When I wanted to create s statically linked busybox (1.22.1), I looked > >> in the wiki and found the page: > >> > >> http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/Building_Busybox > >> > >> > >> This put me off a bit, as I did not want to modify my kernel headers > >> just to compile a static busybox. > > > > In order to compile Busybox (at least the applets that need kernel > > headers), you have to have a copy of the kernel headers in your musl > > include path anyway; if the host system is glibc-based, /usr/include > > will not be used. So this isn't as big a burden as it sounds like. > > You're not modifying "your kernel headers" but just the copy installed > > with musl. This does not need root. > > The way I installed musl-1.1.14, there were no kernel headers installed. Yes, musl does not need kernel headers. They're only needed if you want to compile applications which user kernel headers, which are mostly limited to low-level utilities for network configuration, device access, etc. and in that case it's up to you to provide them. > I just did the > > ../configurre --prefix=$MUSL_BASE > make > make install > > without any toolchain. So, the kernel headers were not found like this. > Linking them into the include directory of musl seems to be the least > expensive in this case. Yes, linking them should work, and in that case you probably have a good system for getting Busybox to work without modifying them. I haven't looked at it in detail yet though. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.