Busybox

Hello,

Has anyone successfully used busybox on the QNX OS?
Its very popular in the embedded Linux community…

Thanks,
Brendan

Brendan Lelieveld-Amiro <brendan@storagequest.com> wrote:

Hello,

Has anyone successfully used busybox on the QNX OS?
Its very popular in the embedded Linux community…

Yes, it is very popular. But that comes from the fact that many things
from “normal” linux are big and bloated. Even the smallest libc (uclibc)
is about 2x the size of our normal libc+libcpp.

We already have something that includes the basic shell utilities, fesh (fat
esh). It would be possible to port busybox without too much effort I suspect.
I have talked to the authors about it in the past, they seemed excited about
the prospect of having it running on things besides linux.

chris


Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

Chris,

Thanks for the reply!

I was interested in this product because It seems to replace all the common
utilities with only one small binary… It seemed like it would simplify
our
embedded QNX product and lower the cost of licensing… Perhaps I’ll
try to port it…

Thanks!
Brendan



“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:apc2es$rjb$1@nntp.qnx.com

Brendan Lelieveld-Amiro <> brendan@storagequest.com> > wrote:
Hello,

Has anyone successfully used busybox on the QNX OS?
Its very popular in the embedded Linux community…


Yes, it is very popular. But that comes from the fact that many things
from “normal” linux are big and bloated. Even the smallest libc (uclibc)
is about 2x the size of our normal libc+libcpp.

We already have something that includes the basic shell utilities, fesh
(fat
esh). It would be possible to port busybox without too much effort I
suspect.
I have talked to the authors about it in the past, they seemed excited
about
the prospect of having it running on things besides linux.

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

I just spent a little bit of time looking at it and most of it seems to
compile very cleanly (once you stop including features.h). The problems
arise when assumptions are made about the OS interface and header locations
(they’re leaning towards Linux). The main areas I saw problems were the
ioctls used to probe network interfaces, our lack of a library interface to
the mount table (fstab/mtab), and general system call incompatability. I
expect that one could probably get most of it running without too much
difficulty though since source is available for many of the utilities that
do what you need. Before I quit, I had 90 compiled objects with only 4
failures so it’s probably not too bad.

cheers,

Kris

“Brendan Lelieveld-Amiro” <brendan@storagequest.com> wrote in message
news:apc82r$66s$1@inn.qnx.com

Chris,

Thanks for the reply!

I was interested in this product because It seems to replace all the
common
utilities with only one small binary… It seemed like it would simplify
our
embedded QNX product and lower the cost of licensing… Perhaps I’ll
try to port it…

Thanks!
Brendan



“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:apc2es$rjb$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Brendan Lelieveld-Amiro <> brendan@storagequest.com> > wrote:
Hello,

Has anyone successfully used busybox on the QNX OS?
Its very popular in the embedded Linux community…


Yes, it is very popular. But that comes from the fact that many things
from “normal” linux are big and bloated. Even the smallest libc
(uclibc)
is about 2x the size of our normal libc+libcpp.

We already have something that includes the basic shell utilities, fesh
(fat
esh). It would be possible to port busybox without too much effort I
suspect.
I have talked to the authors about it in the past, they seemed excited
about
the prospect of having it running on things besides linux.

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
\

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:

I just spent a little bit of time looking at it and most of it seems to
compile very cleanly (once you stop including features.h). The problems
arise when assumptions are made about the OS interface and header locations
(they’re leaning towards Linux). The main areas I saw problems were the
ioctls used to probe network interfaces, our lack of a library interface to
the mount table (fstab/mtab), and general system call incompatability. I
expect that one could probably get most of it running without too much
difficulty though since source is available for many of the utilities that
do what you need. Before I quit, I had 90 compiled objects with only 4
failures so it’s probably not too bad.

What? You gave up with only 4 object files to go?!! <for shame! ;v>

\

cburgess@qnx.com

“Colin Burgess” <cburgess@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:apjfa0$as4$1@nntp.qnx.com

Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:
I just spent a little bit of time looking at it and most of it seems to
compile very cleanly (once you stop including features.h). The problems
arise when assumptions are made about the OS interface and header
locations
(they’re leaning towards Linux). The main areas I saw problems were the
ioctls used to probe network interfaces, our lack of a library interface
to
the mount table (fstab/mtab), and general system call incompatability.
I
expect that one could probably get most of it running without too much
difficulty though since source is available for many of the utilities
that
do what you need. Before I quit, I had 90 compiled objects with only 4
failures so it’s probably not too bad.

What? You gave up with only 4 object files to go?!! <for shame! ;v

Well, there were still about 150 c files left that weren’t compiled - I was
just giving you an idea of the ratio. I hadn’t done any actual porting up
until that point other than commenting out features.h. The problem is that
the particular files that failed would involve a fair amount of re-writing
because they’re using Linux specific methods for getting mount points,
ethernet interfaces, etc. If I didn’t have so many PR’s on my plate I’d
finish it for sure. Busybox is cool.

cheers,

Kris