On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:54 PM Tito wrote: > > this embedded scripts patch looks like "featuritis" at its best to me. > It is adding complexity for solving what problem exactly: > avoiding to copy the scripts manually to the new system or to > the new firmware image?
I see one advantage of embedding scripts into busybox binary: compression. The script could remain compressed in a firmware or read-only image, saving space, and is useful for users who build busybox only to run a specific script (installation, embedded system startup, or something else non-trivial). I think it's okay for that use case. > The complexity added to the config system and to bb's common app init > code seems not worth it. I can't say about the common init code, but I do think adding complexity to config system is bad, and that's why I'm against the script-as-applet feature (especially with applet dependencies that could be hell). > One side effect I fear will derive from this patch is that > users which would be capable of sending patches for bugs > they find in bb will resort to simply scrap the applet and add > an embedded script as it is faster. I disagree. Embedded script always has an overhead of starting a shell interpreter, although I acknowledge the size advantage the script can provide, as long as many coreutils are present in that environment. The script won't worth embedding if you don't intend to build a shell or coreutils in busybox. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
