[klibc] difference between busybox and klibc (faq?)

maximilian attems max at stro.at
Fri Mar 28 09:57:30 PDT 2008

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.

> 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?


More information about the klibc mailing list