On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 23:33:12 +0100
Eolien55 wrote:
> Страхиња Радић wrote:
> > The problem of having separate *box executables could be solved by creating
> > an
> > "umbrella" *box project, perhaps having sbase, ubase and
> > [insert_letter]base as
> > git submodules, and deciding what to
Страхиња Радић wrote:
> The problem of having separate *box executables could be solved by creating
> an
> "umbrella" *box project, perhaps having sbase, ubase and [insert_letter]base
> as
> git submodules, and deciding what to build based on the contents of config.mk.
The problem is that
On 24/03/08 06:40AM, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> I would like to move the discussion here and see what alternatives
> we have and how to proceed in this case.
IMHO, if the intention behind sbase was to provide a minimal portable POSIX
utilities implementation, anything not fitting that
I think we should keep the implementation of each tool as minimal as
possible, but POSIX-complete, and of course common tools such as
install(1) and tar(1). However, actually using a system that is
nothing more than POSIX is very cumbersome. And I think it is a better
solution to implement
Elie Le Vaillant wrote:
> Another idea could be to have both in the same git repository,
> [...]
This would be my idea as well. It also wouldn't be that difficult
to let people pick and choose which sets of tools to include in the
final -box via config.mk or similar. I would stick with only the
Hi,
I think one of the main current issues with the current
organization of sbase's and ubase's code, is that while
they share parts of code (some parts of libutil are shared),
they do not actually have it in common. As a result, changes
to shared parts of libutil in sbase are not reflected in
