On 11/03/2015 15:56, Harald Becker wrote:
And one point to state clearly: I do not want to go the way to fork a project (that is the worst expected), but I'm at a point, I like / need to have Busybox to allow for some additional or modified solutions to fit my preferences
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 ? 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. Then, if upstream wants to integrate your modifications, if you find a reasonable compromise to merge, great; 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. 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. Forks are bad, but alternatives are good. -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
