On 11.03.2015 16:21, Laurent Bercot wrote:
I don't understand that binary choice... You can work on your own
project without forking Busybox. You can use both Busybox and your
own project on your systems. Busybox is a set of tools, why should it
be THE set of tools ?
Sure, I know how to do this, I started creating adapted Busybox versions
to specific needs for a minimalistic 386SX Board. Around 1995, or so ...
wow, long time now :)
It is neither a knowledge nor any technical problem, it is preference:
I want to have *one* statical binary in the minimal system, and being
able to run a full system setup with this (system) binary (or call it
tool set). All I need then is the binary, some configs, some scripts
(and may be special applications). I even go so far, to run a system
with exactly that one binary only, all other applications functions are
done with scripting (ash, sed, awk). Sure those are minimalist
(dedicated systems), but they may be used in a comfortable manner.
I even started a project to create a file system browser (comparable to
Midnight Commander, with no two pane mode but up to 9 quick switch
directories), using only BB and scripting. All packed in a (possibly
self extracting) single shell script. The only requirements to run this,
is (should be) a working BB (defconfig) environment, usual proc, sys,
dev, setup and a writable /tmp directory (e.g. on tmpfs). The work for
this was half way through to first public alpha, then Denys reaction on
a slight change request was so frustrating that I pushed the project
into an otherwise unused archive corner, and stopped any further
development.
I'm not sure how heavily mdev [-s] relies on libbb and how hard it
would be to extract the source and make it into a standalone, easily
hackable project, but if you want to test architecture ideas, that's
the way to go - copy stuff and tinker with it until you have
something satisfying.
I always did it this way, and never posted untested stuff, except some
snippets when one asked for something and I quickly hacked something for
an answer (with mark set as untested).
... if not, you still have your harald-mdev, and you can still use it
along with Busybox - you'll have two binaries instead of one, but
even on whatever tiny noMMU you can work on, you'll be fine.
Sure, I could have two, three, four, ten, twenty, hundred, ... programs,
but my preference is to have *one* statically linked binary for the
complete system tool set (on minimal systems).
... Thats the reason why I dislike and don't use your system approach :(
... otherwise great work :)
That does not preclude design discussions, which I like, and which
can happen here (unless moderators object), and people like Isaac,
me, or obviously Denys, wouldn't be so defensive - because it's now
about your project, not Busybox; you have the final say, and it's
totally fine, because I don't have to use harald-mdev if I don't want
to.
One of the things I really hate, is to force someone doing something
(especially in a specific way), only topped by someone else forcing me
to do something in a specific way :( ...
... so I always try to do modifications in a way which let others decide
about usage, expecting not to break existing setups (at least without
asking ahead if welcome). Slight modifications may happen from
modifications (e.g. different parameter notion), if unavoidable, but
they shall not require complete changes in system setup.
--
Harald
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
