On 6/18/18 11:30 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 18 June 2018 at 17:25, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6/18/18 10:48 AM, Ross Burton wrote: >>> Both busybox and coreutils provide mktemp, and the only difference between >>> those >>> (and standalone mktemp) is that coreutils supports --suffix. >> >> I've got no objections to this.. but I do have a question/comment. >> >> Is mktemp packaged by itself in coreutils or do you need the larger >> coreutils to >> get it. (I'm not actually sure it matters, but in the past there were some >> cases where you might not want all of coreutils, but wanted mktemp...) > > We don't have a small or large coreutils. Maybe that's a WR-ism?
No, I'm referring to system sizes.. there have been systems developed in the past that use a number of alternative command line tooling. I thought coreutils was broken into various packages already. It may have been in the past and is no longer broken up as well -- or maybe the busybox version was lacking some argument mktemp (coreutils mktemp) supports. The point is there was a reason for it in smaller systems, and that reason may not exist any longer -- but just be aware it might come back up as a problem. --Mark > Ross > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
