AMiLDA FORUM

You are not logged in.

Announcement

### Our Homepage is down at the moment...work in progress !! ###

#1 2006-05-01 19:10:24

TiTaN_pi8
Member
Belgium
Registered: 2006-04-15
Last visit: 2006-10-19
Posts: 10

Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Hello,

I've been trying to create my own custom version of AMiLDA. While looking at the AMiLDA source code I noticed you compile sysvinit seperately, instead of using the init supplied by busybox. Why is that? Is there a problem with busybox's init?

Greetz,
TiTaN_pi8

Offline

 

#2 2006-05-02 02:08:38

sergioag
Developer
Peru
From: Lima
Registered: 2006-02-16
Last visit: 2011-08-15
Posts: 166
Website

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Hi

Busybox's init is completely useless. It doesn't offer a default runlevel, which makes startup process much more difficult, complicated and larger. That's why y started to use sysvinit.

Regards,

Sergio

Offline

 

#3 2006-05-02 16:53:35

TiTaN_pi8
Member
Belgium
Registered: 2006-04-15
Last visit: 2006-10-19
Posts: 10

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Ah OK.

I have another question about the sources. I noticed that, even in the latest version of AMiLDA, you use an old version of busybox (v1.1.0) while a much more recent version has been available for several months. Is this because the newer versions of busybox are linked against uClibc 0.9.27 and the edimax toolchain was made for uClibc 0.9.19?

Thanks for the reply!!

Offline

 

#4 2006-05-02 20:50:58

sergioag
Developer
Peru
From: Lima
Registered: 2006-02-16
Last visit: 2011-08-15
Posts: 166
Website

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Hi

The busybox version present in AMiLDA is right now just 3 months old, not much. Anyway, according to the changelog, 1.1.2 doesn't have any fixes or improvements on init.

uClibc 0.9.19 is used just because i have not been able to produce a working system using a more recent version. This includes recompiling the toolchain. I preffer to focus more on development than compiling a new toolchain, because it's not a critical task.

Regards,

Sergio

Offline

 

#5 2006-05-02 21:38:35

TiTaN_pi8
Member
Belgium
Registered: 2006-04-15
Last visit: 2006-10-19
Posts: 10

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Ah yes, I tought BusyBox 1.1.0 was older than that.


I'm thinking about compiling a new toolchain and root filesystem using BuildRoot because I need to cross compile Perl for the router and to do that Perl's configure script must first be run on the router itself. And for this configure script to work correctly, I need to have a native compiler on the router itself  sad , which is preferibly the same as the cross compiler which will be used to cross compile Perl.

If you want, I can notify you about my experiences with this new toolchain and rootfs (which will probably be based on the latest version of uClibc and BusyBox).

Greetz,
TiTaN

Offline

 

#6 2006-05-03 21:58:25

HH
Developer
Registered: 2006-02-15
Last visit: 2007-03-12
Posts: 103

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

I just spent about 3 weeks solid doing nothing but trying to build toolchains.  Good luck.  neutral  I ran "make" at least a thousand times.

The most recent I did using Buildroot with bintools 2.14.90.0.8, gcc 3.3.5, uClibc 0.9.28 and BusyBox 1.1.  It was able to compile the kernel and the userspace programs.  There are a few problems.

BusyBox: shell doesn't write any carriage-returns to the serial console (using vt100) until I run "stty sane".
Running "ping" gives me an "Illegal instruction" error.  I used compiler flags "-Os -mips32 -march=4kc -mtune=4kc" on everything.  No idea what the problem could be.  I can't get the network working so debugging is very hard.

Building a toolchain based on gcc-2.96 and uClibc is very hard to do.  You will end up knowing GNU Make inside and out, as well as shell scripting and sed.  Not to mention the different versions of BusyBox and uClibc.  uClibc has gone through many versions of Rules.mak, Makefile and .cofig.

Offline

 

#7 2006-05-05 13:39:00

HH
Developer
Registered: 2006-02-15
Last visit: 2007-03-12
Posts: 103

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Here's a tip that may save you some time if you're thinking of building your own toolchain.  Don't use any binutils less than 2.16.1.  I just wasted a week pulling my hair out trying to debug a problem with uClibc, gcc and busybox and the problem all along was binutils.   mad  I updated to version 2.16.90.3 and all my problems went away.

The only place you will find that information is by digging through the linux-mips mailing list archives.  The point was made several years ago but I just found out about it.  A whole week!  mad  yikes  hmm

Offline

 

#8 2006-05-05 17:50:46

TiTaN_pi8
Member
Belgium
Registered: 2006-04-15
Last visit: 2006-10-19
Posts: 10

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

I find it strange that you experience so much problems with buildroot. I just compiled a root filesystem for the first time, made some adjustments to the kernel to allow booting from usb stick and it works... Still have a couple of warnings on bootup (false entries in inittab) but they are easy to get rid of.

If you want I can send you my buildroot's and busybox's .configs?

BTW, i'm using Binutils 2.16.1 (default option in buildroot)

Last edited by TiTaN_pi8 (2006-05-05 17:51:50)

Offline

 

#9 2006-05-05 19:58:41

HH
Developer
Registered: 2006-02-15
Last visit: 2007-03-12
Posts: 103

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

The smallest code is generated by gcc-2.95 or gcc-2.96 and buildroot doesn't work with those old versions.  I have some binary-only programs that came with my original router firmware that do not run when I use a newer compiler to build uClibc.  There is no source code for them so I have to stick as close to the original toolchain components as possible in order to run them.

Offline

 

#10 2006-05-06 19:56:27

TiTaN_pi8
Member
Belgium
Registered: 2006-04-15
Last visit: 2006-10-19
Posts: 10

Re: Sysvinit compiled seperately (not from busybox)

Well, the newer versions don't really have *must have* benefits, so that isn't really a problem. I just like to work with latest versions if I can...

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB