Pack busybox using guix, but make check have fail tests

Pack busybox using guix, but make check have fail tests

[c4droid]

Hi,

I'm working on the using busybox to provide the guix bootstrap recipes
for my building Linux From Scratch system using GNU Guix projects. when
I pack the busybox using guix, I copy the original package definitions
from gnu/packages/busybox.scm, I add enable-static-link build phases to
make busybox static linked. At building test, guix can build busybox
perfectly, but at running test suites, I got test failed about mdev
components, I check guix original package definitions for busybox, build
it, mdev test suites is skipped, I don't know how to skip the mdev test
suites, hope get some guidence for skip the mdev test suites, thanks. :)

My busybox package definitions is at https://github.com/c4dr01d/guix-lfs-bootstrap/blob/master/lfs/packages/busybox.scm

Re: Pack busybox using guix, but make check have fail tests

[Joshua Branson]

c4droid <c4droid@foxmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm working on the using busybox to provide the guix bootstrap recipes
> for my building Linux From Scratch system using GNU Guix projects. when
> I pack the busybox using guix, I copy the original package definitions
> from gnu/packages/busybox.scm, I add enable-static-link build phases to
> make busybox static linked. At building test, guix can build busybox
> perfectly, but at running test suites, I got test failed about mdev
> components, I check guix original package definitions for busybox, build
> it, mdev test suites is skipped, I don't know how to skip the mdev test
> suites, hope get some guidence for skip the mdev test suites, thanks. :)
>
> My busybox package definitions is at https://github.com/c4dr01d/guix-lfs-bootstrap/blob/master/lfs/packages/busybox.scm

AWESOME!  Thanks for working on this!  Best of luck!

I am commenting just because.  I'm a guix contributor not a developer,
so please take my words with a grain of salt.  :)

I believe that busybox has a more permissive license than coreutils?  Is
that true?   I think I heard rms suggest that one should develop for
coreutils more than busybox.  Someone please correct me if I am mistaken
in some way.

Anyway, great job!  And best of luck!

--
Joshua Branson (joshuaBPMan in #guix)
Sent from Emacs and Gnus
  https://gnucode.me
  https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels
  https://propernaming.org
  "You can have whatever you want, as long as you help
enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar

Re: Pack busybox using guix, but make check have fail tests

[c4droid]

Hi, Joshua!

Joshua Branson writes:

> c4droid <c4droid@foxmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on the using busybox to provide the guix bootstrap recipes
>> for my building Linux From Scratch system using GNU Guix projects. when
>> I pack the busybox using guix, I copy the original package definitions
>> from gnu/packages/busybox.scm, I add enable-static-link build phases to
>> make busybox static linked. At building test, guix can build busybox
>> perfectly, but at running test suites, I got test failed about mdev
>> components, I check guix original package definitions for busybox, build
>> it, mdev test suites is skipped, I don't know how to skip the mdev test
>> suites, hope get some guidence for skip the mdev test suites, thanks. :)
>>
>> My busybox package definitions is at https://github.com/c4dr01d/guix-lfs-bootstrap/blob/master/lfs/packages/busybox.scm
>
> AWESOME!  Thanks for working on this!  Best of luck!
>
> I am commenting just because.  I'm a guix contributor not a developer,
> so please take my words with a grain of salt.  :)
>
> I believe that busybox has a more permissive license than coreutils?  Is
> that true?   I think I heard rms suggest that one should develop for
> coreutils more than busybox.  Someone please correct me if I am mistaken
> in some way.
>

Busybox takes the GPL 2 license, coreutils takes GPL3+

You may right, in other hands, my learning linux kernel development lab
need static linked busybox too, for create initramfs in test the kernel
modules proposes. Maybe have a better options, other solutions are
welcome.

And, I want my bootstrap recipes even smaller, by busybox with mescc
combinations. I think for a while, the busybox take many UNIX utililies
in one single executables, even the coreutils, that fits my expects.

But the way, thanks for your words and the grains of salt and thank you
for affirming my work. :)

> Anyway, great job!  And best of luck!

Re: Pack busybox using guix, but make check have fail tests

[Bone Baboon]

Joshua Branson writes:
> I believe that busybox has a more permissive license than coreutils?

Looking at the coreutils repository I can see that it is using GPL
version 3
<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/COPYING>.  When I
run `guix search coreutils` the output says the license is "GPL 3+".
Looking at an individual source code file I can see that it says "either
version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." <https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/cat.c>.

BusyBox is licensed under the GPL version
2. <https://www.busybox.net/license.html>. "To summarize: every version
of BusyBox may be distributed under the terms of GPL version 2. New
versions (after 1.2.2), as a whole, may only be distributed under GPLv2,
not under other versions of the GPL."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3>
gives me the impression that GPL version 2 is more permissive than GPL
version 3.

Re: Pack busybox using guix, but make check have fail tests

[Joshua Branson]

Bone Baboon <bone.baboon@disroot.org> writes:

> Joshua Branson writes:
>> I believe that busybox has a more permissive license than coreutils?
>
> Looking at the coreutils repository I can see that it is using GPL
> version 3
> <https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/COPYING>.  When I
> run `guix search coreutils` the output says the license is "GPL 3+".
> Looking at an individual source code file I can see that it says "either
> version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." <https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/cat.c>.
>
> BusyBox is licensed under the GPL version
> 2. <https://www.busybox.net/license.html>. "To summarize: every version
> of BusyBox may be distributed under the terms of GPL version 2. New
> versions (after 1.2.2), as a whole, may only be distributed under GPLv2,
> not under other versions of the GPL."
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3>
> gives me the impression that GPL version 2 is more permissive than GPL
> version 3.

Thanks for clarifying!

-- 
Joshua Branson (joshuaBPMan in #guix)
Sent from Emacs and Gnus
  https://gnucode.me
  https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels
  https://propernaming.org
  "You can have whatever you want, as long as you help
enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar