klibc - Mar 2008 - difference between busybox and klibc (faq?)

Hello

what is the difference between busybox and klibc?

Say, I want to use an initramfs in order to mount root over nfs, I can
choose to use klibc with ipconfig and nfsmount? But I can also choose to use
busybox with ifconfig and mount.

So what's the difference, and why and in which case one is preferable to the
other?

If it's a FAQ, I'm sorry, just give me the link

Thanks

Eurolines : Voyagez au meilleur prix : http://www.alinto.com/pub/

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:29:50PM +0100, octane indice
wrote:
> 
> what is the difference between busybox and klibc?
the obvious one is that klibc provides a minimalistic c standard lib
the utils are reduced to those useful for an initramfs boot environment.

if you want to see klibc usage, you can clone debian's initramfs-tools
git clone 	git://git.debian.org/git/kernel/initramfs-tools.git

and no klibc has no manpages.
 
> Say, I want to use an initramfs in order to mount root over nfs, I can
> choose to use klibc with ipconfig and nfsmount? But I can also choose to
use
> busybox with ifconfig and mount.
initramfs-tools provides an nfsmount implementation.
busybox will have to be linked against a c lib that you
need to put in initramfs too.
 
> So what's the difference, and why and in which case one is preferable
to the
> other?
klibc is been tested and heavily used in the early boot userspace.
 
> If it's a FAQ, I'm sorry, just give me the link
if you have more specific questions don't be shy to post them.

regards

-- 
maks

En r?ponse ? maximilian attems <max at stro.at> :
 > > what is the difference between busybox and klibc?
 > 
 > the obvious one is that klibc provides a minimalistic c
 > standard lib the utils are reduced to those useful for 
 >an initramfs boot environment.
 > 
 ok.
 
 > if you want to see klibc usage, you can clone debian's
 > initramfs-tools
 > git clone
 	git://git.debian.org/git/kernel/initramfs-tools.git
 > 
 ok, I allready read some initramfs from debian, ubuntu and
 slackware in order to better understand.
 
 > and no klibc has no manpages.
 >  
 ok, someone told me to use the README files inside the source.
 that's enough for me to progress
 
 > > Say, I want to use an initramfs in order to mount root
 > > over nfs, I can choose to use klibc with ipconfig and 
 > > nfsmount? But I can also choose to use
 > > busybox with ifconfig and mount.
 > 
 > initramfs-tools provides an nfsmount implementation.
 > busybox will have to be linked against a c lib that you
 > need to put in initramfs too.
 >  
 Yes, but, the goal can be established by both tools?
 
 > > So what's the difference, and why and in which case one is
 > >preferable to the other?
 > 
 > klibc is been tested and heavily used in the early boot
 > userspace.
 >  
 > > If it's a FAQ, I'm sorry, just give me the link
 > 
 > if you have more specific questions don't be shy to post
 them.
 > 
 In fact, I have a lot, but I don't want to disturb this list
 by FAQ, so I prefer to check google/ docs/ archive
 before asking.
 
 My goal is to have a minimalistic kernel, with initramfs
 inside,
 that can be used to boot everyPC everywhere, as soon
 they have network access.
 
 So: kernel boots, initramfs load. But I read everywhere
 that 2.6 kernels needs a bootloader. If I load initramfs
 inside
 kernel, can I drop the bootloader? Almost everything in the
 command line can be loaded inside initramfs, so the bootloader
 is useless?
 
 Then the initramfs would drop a menu. (at first, a shell)
 this menu asks you where is the root filesystem.
 then it mount it and continues to boot.
 
 I want to test it with nfs, then nfs over wireless links,
 nfs over ipsec, then use it with fuse filesystem like 
 sshfs or httpfs or any combination of these.
 
 Eventually, make a 2-time boot by loading a more recent 
 kernel witk kexec, or with more capacities.
 
 Are these questions related to this list?
 
-------------------- Fin de message --------------------




Eurolines : Voyagez au meilleur prix : http://www.alinto.com/pub/

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, octane indice wrote:
> > > Say, I want to use an initramfs in order to mount root over
> > > nfs, I can choose to use klibc with ipconfig and 
> > >nfsmount? But I can also choose to use
> > > busybox with ifconfig and mount.
> > 
> > initramfs-tools provides an nfsmount implementation.
> > busybox will have to be linked against a c lib that you
> > need to put in initramfs too.
> >  
> Yes, but, the goal can be established by both tools?
not per se with busybox alone
 
> My goal is to have a minimalistic kernel, with initramfs inside,
> that can be used to boot everyPC everywhere, as soon
> they have network access.
why a minimalistic kernel?
what do you understand by that?
a kernel that boots everywhere has many modules builds and thus
may not be considered minimalistic. you should weight which goal
you want to persue.
 
> So: kernel boots, initramfs load. But I read everywhere
> that 2.6 kernels needs a bootloader. If I load initramfs inside
> kernel, can I drop the bootloader? Almost everything in the
> command line can be loaded inside initramfs, so the bootloader
> is useless?
no the bootloader puts initramfs in mem and tells the kernel
the start and end of it's memory. you are confusing things.
 
> Then the initramfs would drop a menu. (at first, a shell)
> this menu asks you where is the root filesystem.
> then it mount it and continues to boot.
hmm the bootloader usualy passes the root args that
are then interpreted by initramfs. letting the user
decide that seems like a risky job.
 
> I want to test it with nfs, then nfs over wireless links,
> nfs over ipsec, then use it with fuse filesystem like 
> sshfs or httpfs or any combination of these.
joy.
 
> Eventually, make a 2-time boot by loading a more recent 
> kernel witk kexec, or with more capacities.
> 
> Are these questions related to this list?
yes.