>>>>> "rep" == rep dot nop <rep.dot....@gmail.com> writes:
> On 14 December 2023 08:22:36 CET, Peter Korsgaard <pe...@korsgaard.com> > wrote: >>>>>>> "Aleksander" == Aleksander Mazur <dewelo...@wp.pl> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > AFAIR similar problem applies to util-linux/lspci.c. >> > Do you build busybox with shell enabled? >> > Instead of busybox's lspci/lsusb I use 2 quite simple shell scripts >> > (working in hush). >> >> Yes, lsusb/lspci are really simple applets, but given that they already >> exist we might as well make them more useful. >> > Is it worth the wattage, though? > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SmZVhImx1pY > Maybe it is (not, so far)? Well, not up to me to decide. My (obviously not objective) opinion is that it is. It is a fairly big improvement for usability, and as the bloat-o-meter output shows, it adds less than 400 bytes - Where approximately half of those are libbb functions shared with other applets. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
