There are interesting technical points in this discussion, but it
turns out to be mostly about philosophy and frustration.
Harald, there are two points in your arguments which make no sense
to me:
Le 12/03/2015 17:31, Harald Becker a écrit :
... because there are people, wo dislike using netlink and want use
the kernel hotplug helper mechanism. That's it. Peoples preferences
are different. Opt out the functions you dislike in BB config.
Hotplug is KISS, it is stupid, maybe, but it is so simple that you
can probably do the job with a script. The same serialization you
propose to implement in user space by the mean of several processes, a
named pipe and still the fork bomb, has been implemented in the kernel
without the fork bomb: it is called netlink.
These people you are talking of, who would like to see hotplug
serialized but do not want netlink, do they really exist? This set of
people is most likely the empty set. In case these really exist, then
they must be idiots, and then, well, should Busybox support idiocy?
Le 11/03/2015 19:02, Harald Becker a écrit :
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).
I agree it's fun to have all tools in one static binary. But I dont
see any serious reason to make it an absolute condition. You speak of
*preference*, but this very one looks pretty futile. I don't see the
problem with having even a dozen applications, all static, why not, I'm
also a fan of static linking.
Best regards.
Didier
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
