On Wednesday 09 December 2009 08:54, Michael Abbott wrote: > I guess util-linux is the reference, and it's disappointing to see that > util-linux mount doesn't also filter single mounts. It's a bit nasty to > see this commented out in our code:
Why? It does not consume a single byte in the resulting binary. > presumably we should either implement > it anyway or remove the code. (I'm talking about lines 2053 to 2070 of > util-linux/mount.c, of course.) I think I'm agnostic either way. If/when upstream mount will implement that, yes, then we should uncomment it. > My other thought is that the error message should be filtered on the > verbose flag, which is what util-linux does. Here is a patch for that: Applied, thanks. BTW, did you actually tested that it works for you now? > Do you have any feeling for when there will be a 1.15.3 release? Version > .2 has suddenly acquired a lot of patches! This weekend? > A note on the patch directory (http://busybox.net/downloads/fixes-1.15.2/). > There is no way to tell what order the patches need to be applied, perhaps > there ought to be a sequence number after the version number? Also, there > is no description on each patch of what it does: it would really help, if > nothing else, to add the associated commit message to the patch, or the > appropriate snippet from the e-mail that generated it. > > Of course, mostly the patches don't overlap, so maybe my query about > sequence number is immaterial. However another strange note is that every > time a new patch is added the "Last modified" date updates for all patches > (to the same date), so it's hard for me to spot which ones are new (and of > course, if the date was sensible, I could use that for ordering). I do not plan to pile up so many patches that these considerations are important. If you ask these questions, it means it's definitely time for 1.15.3 :) -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
