Re: [dev] obase - moving forward?

From: Strake <>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 07:48:56 -0500

On 05/06/2012, Jens Staal <> wrote:
> Hi
> I was playing with packaging Christian's obase for Arch

Thanks, never knew that before.

> and an easy-to-chroot package to complement it
> The idea I had was that one could use this environment as a gradual
> experimental environment to build up a complete alternative OS by a
> custom init chrooting into /opt/obase.
> When it has been completely assembled and self-hosting, one could make
> it into an independent system.
> I hope to update both to musl and complete static in the near future.
> At the moment I have some issues with that the binaries refuse to be
> 100% static
> an output of ldd gives:
>> ldd ./ksh
> => (0x00007fffff393000)
> => /lib/ (0x00007fd020358000)
> /lib/ (0x00007fd0206f9000)
> as long as those dynamic dependencies are present, the chroot idea
> will not work.

Against which C library?

The first is not a file, but rather code kept in the kernel and loaded
in the memory space of every proc on the system.

Thus, it ought to not make grief, in this way at least.
Clearly the others will.

> and adding static as CC="$CC -static" or in CFLAGS or LDFLAGS does not help
> :(

With which linker? If GNU, which is likely on Linux, then it may be
broken as designed.

One method to build a full system is to build a toolchain unable to
dynamic link at all, and itself static-linked, and then with it build
the other wares. Crosstool-ng can build such a toolchain.

Received on Tue Jun 05 2012 - 14:48:56 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 05 2012 - 15:00:08 CEST