Jim Cromie wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:

Jan Kiszka wrote:

Jim Cromie wrote:

Niklaus Giger wrote:

Am Freitag, 26. Mai 2006 15:52 schrieb Jan Kiszka:

Niklaus Giger wrote:    ...
If anybody has a working target with a Xenomai + BusyBox combination and would be willing to test drive my changes, I would appreciate a feedback

I hope this isnt waiting on my 'approval'.
I think its a great idea, and has been on my (way too stagnant) list for
a while.
Your work has at least urged me to install busybox on my xeno-box. ;-)

My only concern is whether we've sufficiently distinguished the issues:

1 - ash vs bash

Its not entirely clear to me which flavors of sh busybox has:
   ash / dash / not-bash
I gather u worked with ash, and it seems most valuable sh features
work there just fine ( shell-functions, even 'job-control' of a fashion)

2 - busybox 'executables' only

I coded in a lot of 'full linux' gimme's, like zgrep, script, etc.
Niklaus has repaired many of these.  I think a more thorough cleanup is
esp if things like 'script' are jettisoned for a simpler shell-functions
or helper scripts.
This all implies a re-write, which is on my list...
(esp the job-control testing and repair)

Just stumbled over this again while cleaning up my mailbox. What's the
status? Waiting for improvements, or waiting for /someone/ to type svn
ci (and improve the topics above later)?

It's queued for now, waiting for a combined ack to merge the current patch from JimC and Niklaus.

AFAIC, Niklaus is in the lead atm.
Im trying to get some GPIO stuff ready for -mm.
( I'll post separately on this ..)

I ran his changes once, I dont even remember what it did.
(which suggests that it didnt explode ;-)
IMO, take it when Niklaus says its ready.
I have some local changes here, but Ill work them into shape after
Niks changes go in (maybe much later :-(

We should probly confer on the longer-term issues too.

- a rational option-pass-thru, or a means to avoid doing so.
if we assume OPTS_${TOOLNAME} exists, we could
grab it out of env, and pass it into the benchmark prog.
- would require no prog mods, but gives us complete control
- would play nicer than assuming -T <secs> has meaning for all progs.

Would this fit with an automated test 'bot? Niklaus?



Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to