I'm trying to slim down OLPC's initramfs (built using dracut) as much as possible, since there is a noticable delay for it to be loaded and uncompressed during boot. I am switching it to use busybox rather than the normal utilities, which makes it a lot smaller. However, the busybox provided by fedora is statically linked, so we end up shipping 2 copies of glibc: one inside busybox, and one normal dynamic linked glibc (needed for udev, which I don't think will be excluded from dracut any time soon!) It would be great if fedora could provide a dynamically-linked busybox which we could use to save even more space. Same configuration as the static-linked /sbin/busybox, but dynamically linked to glibc. Perhaps named /sbin/busybox.dynamic in a "busybox-dynamic" subpackage. Built for F14 and rawhide would be great.
Sorry for the delay (In reply to comment #0) > I'm trying to slim down OLPC's initramfs (built using dracut) as much as > possible, since there is a noticable delay for it to be loaded and uncompressed > during boot. > > I am switching it to use busybox rather than the normal utilities, which makes > it a lot smaller. > > However, the busybox provided by fedora is statically linked, so we end up > shipping 2 copies of glibc: one inside busybox, and one normal dynamic linked > glibc (needed for udev, which I don't think will be excluded from dracut any > time soon!) Not really. Busybox in Fedora (including F14) is linked statically against uclibc. Actual amount of code from uclibc which ends up linked into busybox is about 100k. (For glibc, it would start from 400k even for statically built "Hello world") > It would be great if fedora could provide a dynamically-linked busybox which we > could use to save even more space. Same configuration as the static-linked > /sbin/busybox, but dynamically linked to glibc. > > Perhaps named /sbin/busybox.dynamic in a "busybox-dynamic" subpackage. Built > for F14 and rawhide would be great. Do you think it's still worth it in light of the above information?
Possibly. Is it trivial to add? Could you produce a test RPM so that I can examine closer? Thanks for looking into this!
This message is a notice that Fedora 14 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 14. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At this time, all open bugs with a Fedora 'version' of '14' have been closed as WONTFIX. (Please note: Our normal process is to give advanced warning of this occurring, but we forgot to do that. A thousand apologies.) Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, feel free to reopen this bug and simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were unable to fix it before Fedora 14 reached end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged to click on "Clone This Bug" (top right of this page) and open it against that version of Fedora. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping