[lfs-dev] Suggestion

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed May 9 13:43:31 PDT 2012

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Greetings all,
> Consider two things:
> 1. We all hate long build times. Anything we can (reasonably and 
> accurately do) to speed up the build we do.
> 2. Chapter 5 are a set of throwaway tools (in some cases we only build 
> just what we want out of those tools, again, for sake of speed, i.e., 
> gettext)
> Given the above, why don't we use busybox in chapter 5? If we 
> standardize a config we could get rid of 12 packages in chapter 5, 
> namely: ncurses, bash, bzip2, coreutils, diffutils, findutils, gawk, 
> grep, gzip, sed, tar, xz. Possibly 13, patch, although the last time I 
> tested busybox's patch it didn't quite work as hoped, but it's possible 
> it is fixed now.
> In addition to being able to drop those packages, you also get free of 
> charge a vi editor and wget utility for use in chroot.
> Thoughts? If interested, I could start a mockup in the jh branch.

My initial reaction:

It's one more package to download.

For a manual build it would save a bit of user time with cut/paste, but how much 
compute time would it save?

ncurses    50 seconds
bash       43 seconds
bzip2       4 seconds
coreutils  76 seconds
diffutils  24 seconds
findutils  23 seconds
gawk       20 seconds
grep       18 seconds
gzip       14 seconds
sed        12 seconds
tar        38 seconds
xz         20 seconds

Total      5 minutes + 42 seconds

On the other hand
binutils-pass1  1+41
gcc-pass1       8+22
glibc           9+14
binutils-pass1  1+48
gcc-pass2      11+37

Personally I think new users get a benefit from the untar and CMMI process. 
After a couple of times, virtually everyone then uses some type of script.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list