From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25302 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 16:08:10 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 16:08:10 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CFaoL-0002E4-Cq for arch-gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:08:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 13048 invoked by uid 89); 7 Oct 2004 16:08:08 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-embedded-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-embedded@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 24227 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 16:08:07 +0000 From: Marius =?iso-8859-1?q?Sch=E4fer?= To: solar@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:08:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <41621603.40803@gentoo.org> <1097017798.32208.6475.camel@simple> In-Reply-To: <1097017798.32208.6475.camel@simple> Cc: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410071808.09108.mschaefer@mimamau.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-embedded] Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage in Embedded Systems? X-Archives-Salt: e682b0c7-764b-474e-8984-2555763ac863 X-Archives-Hash: 7e8d8acb004750d9d17b82b306abe83b On Wednesday 06 October 2004 01:09, Ned Ludd wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 23:33, Chris White wrote: > > All, > > > > Maybe I've just not seen this, but what sort of footprint does > > portage leave on embedded systems with low cpu/ram? > > I think what your asking about here is what we are starting to coin as a > gentoo-lite system. A lot of people are gaining an interest in this. > Running gentoo with portage on crappy old hardware. Or they just want > the performance boast and lower memory usage. For a system like this I'd > think you would want atleast a P75 with atleast 32M of of ram. > Portage is not so big. But python itself is a beast. > > In one experiment I've managed to get pythons runtime down to about 2 > Megs of HD space. And in another experiment with the portage tree itself How did you do that? I would be interessted very much because of an other project of mine. Thanks Marius > I managed to get it down to 14 Megs with the use of squashfs and > excluding a few things from the tree which I know are not needed to do > emerge system. But a full portage-rsync tree compressed was about 17 > Megs > > Now if we are talking embedded systems in the way I like to think of > them (ie firmware) then the min requirements are about 4M of Ram and 3M > of flash space using a semi default setup, give or take depending on the > device your building for. > > > I ask this mainly > > because it's a Good Thing To Know (tm) considering the last LWE > > conference was full of people asking about using Gentoo for embedded > > devices. > > portage needs work and a fair bit of it. > Other than myself and mike more people need to propose ideas to the > portage team to make things more flexible. > > > Something like higher end Palms may be able to dish it out, > > but what happens when you get to lower end palms or even cell phones? > > What about them? > Most cell phones are ARM based. > Mike Frysinger is currently working on generic uclibc arm little endian > stages. When he has those complete (and most of the bugs worked out) > I'll start on generic uclibc arm big endian stages. When I have those > complete and I'm happy with it I'm going to ship the device off to OSU > so we can continue to support the arch from a (le||be) perspective. The > unit I will be developing with is a nslu2 that was a donation to the > gentoo embedded project thanks to the guys over at the nslu2-linux > project (http://www.nslu2-linux.org/) who had a fund raiser in order to > get me one. They ended up getting 9x the amount in donations needed to > send me a unit and were able to send them to a number of other embedded > projects. > > Unfortunately there are a few drawbacks to our embedded support right > now. > 1) Lack of skilled (wo)manpower. > 2) Lack of proper cross-toolchain handling by portage. So everything is > considered native-* vs cross-* (this means you must use the same host > arch as your target arch) or use a binfmt_elf kernel module to emulate > your target arch. > 3) package management for embedded devices. (no all devices are > read-only) > - ipkg format seems ideal here but I/we have not enough input from the > community to tell what will be ideal in the long run. > > If anybody that has a decent level of cross compiling experience and > thinks that they would be interested in gentoo supporting better cross-* > support please contact me. (seriously motivated people only) > > > Thanks ahead of time for any/all comments and hold on (*ChrisWhite > > prepares fireproof suit)... and flames. > > hrmm flames.. none right now but as soon as I can think of something or > get a blowtorch I'll be sure to direct it your way. -- gentoo-embedded@gentoo.org mailing list