Tiny Core Base > Corepure64
libre kernel
nick65go:
--- Quote from: FilthyJack on July 21, 2016, 03:26:45 PM ---Thanks for the answer!
I'm not really trying to reinvent the whole tinycore concept, I'm sure you've been through a lot to get it straight. What I'm after is the possibility to have a libre kernel + corepure64.gz + compiletc and then to be able to recompile everything from (full) source.
This is why I mentioned a pre-made initramfs , a template, before you add any pre-compiled stuff to it. Treating the binaries inside core.gz just like any package.
With that we could:
-Compile kernel.
-Get a fresh core.gz (populated with default stuff and portable scripts from TC).
-Compile ldconfig/busybox and all binary components. (creating a new core.gz)
-Compile any extension for the target system.
The whole OS could compile itself from full source and port itself to different platforms pretty easily. [/dream]
--- End quote ---
I was thinking about the same process...
Uclib will be history, soon. Have a look at https://www.landley.net/toybox/about.html
Most of the apps from busybox are ready to be replaced, no need for libc/uclib etc.
BTW, see also a good environment to rebuild Tinycore from scratch http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html
All in all, still Tinycore is the winner (until now) against other linux distros.
curaga:
Why? Toybox is a license-motivated competitor to busybox with less functionality. Its license is the only advantage, and being BSD it is not an advantage vs GPL to us.
nick65go:
Hi curaga, sorry, I can not modify my previous post
I am not concerned about license thing. I am interested in smaller size, modular, less dependency, build itself from sources by scripts.
I agree, maybe for now toybox is not a FULL replacement of busybox, but for sure is smaller, simpler that busybox.
All the functions in toybox are new code, not clones of old code borrowed from busybox. Focus is on security (google accepted the code).
My idea was to replace, in steps, one by one the busybox functions. Having a init ram template without binaries were the first step...
I would like to add that it is good to remember that emeritus Robert, Tinycore "inventor", started with init-ram/tempfs and busybox. And Rob Landley (see my previous posted links), author of toybox and aboriginal linux, was the pioneer of init-ram / in ram file system and developer/maintainer of busybox. IMHO, I think that is a good think to keep an eye on his developing software, not ignore his work.
Building ITSELF from sources, modular, using scripts, in the best thing to happen to tinycore.
FilthyJack:
I've tried aboriginal, open-embedded and a bunch of other cross-compiling suite but I agree TinyCore is my fav and as a developper I'm really interested in audit and source control.
The closest I've come to reproduce TC 7.1 from source is:
-compile kernel-libre-gnu-4.2.7.
-depmod/install kernel modules to the rootfs.
-compile glibc 2.22/binutils/busybox/udev etc (buildroot can help too).
-copy all the boot/setup/config scripts related to TC.
Then you have full control over what is going in your rootfs and can compile any part of your OS from source or modify a root component like bysybox/toybox/*libc.
mocore:
--- Quote from: nick65go on July 30, 2016, 01:17:49 PM ---
--- Quote from: FilthyJack on July 21, 2016, 03:26:45 PM ---The whole OS could compile itself from full source and port itself to different platforms pretty easily. [/dream]
--- End quote ---
I was thinking about the same process...
--- End quote ---
I have been considering attempting similar ,
.. but thaught it might be novel to try and build/package the core base using nix or guix package manager / 'expressions' [/dream]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version