On 06/03/14 16:40, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:19:55AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> It's got basic flag parsing and is autodetecting bind and loopback >> mounts, but no support for remount or fstab yet. > > Neat! > mount is the last bit of what I needed for setting up a small rootfs; > I didn't want to submit in-tree documentation until everything needed > was in a usable state.
I've meant to do it forever, just been a bit overwhelmed with everything else. :) >> You may notice the new xpopen() infrastructure in lib, which shells out >> to an xexec() with stdin/stdout/stderr captured via pipes. That's a >> thing I've needed for a while so we can fork and call other local >> commands without needing an exec. (Doesn't do xexec_optargs() but I >> haven't thought of a case needing i/o capture for that yet.) > > Is this going to be part of the plumbing for decompression? > (I seem to recollect talk about using fork & xexec with pipes to handle > stuff like decompressing tarballs...) Yeah, most likely. This would make tar hard to use within uboot or similar, but the "common case" here is android, and someday I hope to see a public domain bootloader implementing about what linux 0.0.1 had (basic syscalls, round robin scheduler, etc). >> I need to update the documentation. I'm getting to the point where >> there's enough material I might need separate tutorial and reference >> versions, except keeping duplicate copies of the same information in >> sync is never fun. Maybe I can leverage toys/example harder... >> >> Rob > > I've been wondering if there should be more things in there myself. I know there _should_ be, the question is what. :) >> (It's singular/plural names that really screw me up. lib is singular, >> scripts is plural, toys is plural, toys/example is singular... Sigh. I >> can never remember if various websites have "download" or "downloads", >> but then my own website has "writing" singular "and "talks" plural...) > > Just to be pedantic: isn't lib collective? ;) > At first I occasionally typo'd toys/example as toys/examples, but it's > not really worthy of a change as far as I can tell. > (Reminds me of a comment about how _change_, without a justification, is > not good, nor even neutral: learning the new approach is a real cost.) Indeed. Not worth the churn. Just annoyed at myself for leaving a rough edge. > Thanks, > Isaac Dunham Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
