On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Ralf Friedl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Laszlo > > First, please either write your message below the quotes, or omit the > quotes. Especially don't quote parts that are not relevant to your message.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make in here, sorry, nor do I care about the details 'cause the thread is already huge. >> At least three people expressed that it is about convenience, a useful >> one. > > Well, all of them didn't provide a convincing argument. And most others on > this list wonder why you make such a big deal about something that can be > solved with a few lines in a shell script. If you want a configuration file > only for the time servers, this script will give you compatibility to the > ntp.org config file: > #!/bin/sh > NTPD_OPTIONS="..." > exec busybox ntpd $NTPD_OPTIONS $(sed -nre 's/^server *(.*)$/-p > \1/g'/etc/ntp.conf ) I wonder if you are serious about this compared to the alternative way: /etc/busybox-ntpd/busybox-ntpd.conf foo=bar I guess you are trying to be smart in here without actually realizing significant difference between the two versions. I would not even bother to use busybox's ntpd if I had to write such ugly lines that is much more difficult to maintain than needed to. >> Anyway, please comment on the init script that I posted earlier when >> you get around to it, as well as the corresponding config file.. > > I'm not Harald, but I will comment on it anyway. > Short version: > It's a very nice script. Use it. Be very happy with it. > > Long version: > I guess it fits into your distibution, but it's useless for most others. > That was one of the points Harald made, you want things specific to your > distibution in Busybox, where they don't belong. You could place it > somewhere in the contrib directory, but it would probably be a waste of > space and bandwidth. > Most distributions come with a template for such a script, and it shouldn't > take more than a few minutes to adapt such a template. > You use start-stop-daemon. Why do you think everybody would even have the > program, or want to use it? Seriously though, you did not get the point of the thread, have you? *No one* has suggested to add initscripts to busybox. Please do re-read the thread. A short configuration file was just suggested. You are the first one indicating that initscript would need to be added. > Your script has a reaload case, where you send SIGHUP. What should ntpd do > on SIGHUP? Reload the config file? You said that reloading the config is not > necessary when it was about code size, so why send SIGHUP? Sorry, I cannot follow your logic in here. There is no any need for signal handling in order to load a config on start, really. > Finally, the export in the configuration file is not necessary. It was already discussed, I am afraid. > In one email in this thread someone suggested to make the configuration > hardcoded as the compile time configuration. I just hope that was meant as a > joke. Not at all, no. It was serious, at least from my side. >> > Usually scripts in/etc/init.d use /etc/default/* as config values >> >> > (some distros, even using them as main config files). The scripts that >> > Laszlo posted fit that pattern. >> Not quite; actually "/etc/default" is more like a Debian, et al, >> pattern. OpenWrt will use something. Yocto uses something else, etc. >> And for what it is worth, buildroot is also strange with >> "/etc/default/ntpd" without any busybox indication. > > Which again shows that distributions are different, so which distibution > style should Busybox pick? It is up to the distribution to provide the right > information to the program. Exactly the opposite. You really missed the point of this thread. The whole point about configuration file is to unify it, for me at least. >> I would ask this question from myself if I were you: what do I gain or >> lose with such a feature added or rejected? ... > > That is a good question if maximizing the number of users is the top > priority. Dropping users do not make any sense without gaining more which seems to be the case here so far. > Also someone suggested that devices today have GHz CPUs and at least 512MB > RAM. Well, maybe they are not the target audience of busybox. There are also > devices with 16MB RAM and 4MB flash. Actually, the compilation time option has already been said, but let us consider that for a second it has not... Are you telling me that a simple open/read/close will saturate the flas because it is complex. You better stop writing software then because you exceed the limit very quickly. :-) >> I do not follow. The busybox user is the distro and maintainer in this >> case, really. The end user is not necessarily even aware of busybox, >> I would really appreciate more respect here towards end users. >> The end users have raised their opinion how they >> would like to see your software behaving. > > I hope you realize that you are contradicting yourself here, within a few > lines of a single email. No, I do not. I still stick by my opinion in here I am afraid. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
