> I agree with both of you that patching every application is a no-go. > However, a lot of flash based storage mediums are exposed as block > devices nowadays, thus UBI can't always be used.
Specialized filesystems such as jffs2 or yaffs2 still can, however. > isn't exactly ideal. Tweaking the fs might be a solution here (e.g. > delayed writing), but this affects more than just BusyBox, which might > not be desirable. Why shouldn't it be? Either you want to reduce the number of writes to the filesystem, or you don't. Delayed writing, which is configured at the filesystem layer, accomplishes this for every application without the need for patching. Applications can always fsync() when they need synchronous writes. > [ symlink the history file to a RAM filesystem ] > Thanks for the suggestion, but this would require me to manually copy > history files at boot and shutdown, or write shell scripts to do this > for me. It is much cleaner to let BusyBox itself handle this per a > configurable option (like my patch) in my opinion. Patching an application to suit your specific needs is cleaner than writing two lines of script to achieve the same purpose ?? -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
