2015-03-13 11:19 GMT+01:00 Harald Becker <[email protected]>: > On 13.03.2015 10:30, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote: >> >> There are many configuration options in BB that must be defined at >> build time. I don't see why this one would be different. > > You can activate both as the default (with cost of some byte overhead of > code size), and let the user of the binary decide which mechanism he > prefers, or even flip temporarily (without system interruption).
Sure. But this same argument could also be applied to many other options in BB which currently are defined at build time. I am just saying that in most other areas, Busybox does not work like this. > >> Users that want a functional solution will not probably care much >> about the underlying implementation. > > Exactly that means, using only one mechanism, is forcing those users to do > it in a specific way, with all sort of consequences. I understand your argument. You are saying that users should be able to choose at runtime. What I say is that my impression is that most users belong to one of the following two groups: Those who don't really care, and those who are happy making this choice at build time. Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia [email protected] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
