Re: [PATCH] busybox/defconfig: Enable options required by LAVA

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denys@ti.com>]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 12:58:29PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 12:34:54PM -0500, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote:
> > > I don't believe we actively use thttpd any more. It was added way back to
> > > Classic Arago to support DVSDK and running cgi scripts as root:
> > > 
> > > http://arago-
> > > project.org/git/?p=arago.git;a=commit;h=f8bf614c85f435f53a78a0151b239341
> > > 643f6a13
> > > 
> > > I'd vote to kill it.
> 
> > [Franklin] I've wanted to kill it for a while but I was told that customers 
> > frequently asked for a very lightweight web server so we kept it there to 
> > show it off. Other than documentation I don't think we refer to thttpd in 
> > our sdk.
> 
> So, to summarize - we'll kill separate thttpd and enable httpd in busybox.
> Also, lighthttpd will stay, as it's used by matrix and is more feature-full

Any comments?


> > > > >>>> -CONFIG_IFUPDOWN_UDHCPC_CMD_OPTIONS="-R -n"
> > > > >>>> +CONFIG_IFUPDOWN_UDHCPC_CMD_OPTIONS="-R -b"
> > > > >>>
> > > > > That's still not the same - with -n flag udhcp will time out soon if
> > > > > not received IP address, while with -b it will go into background
> > > > > and will wait for IP address there. So, if you add & at the end of
> > > > > command with -n it will go into background, but exit soon after, which is not
> > > the same.
> > > > >
> > > > So it sits indefinitely and assigns ip's whenever it can? If so I
> > > > would actual prefer that. I still need to check.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it is my understanding that it will keep on pinging the server with request-
> > > IP periodically in the background, until it gets one.
> > > 
> > > The current behaviour is it tries 3 times and if it can't get an IP, it exits with
> > > error.
> > > 
> > > In both cases, once the IP is acquired, the client has to stay in the background
> > > for renewing the lease. The difference is the initial acquision.
> 
> > [Franklin] This change will cause problems for one of our scripts. Since we 
> > are extremely close to our release I would prefer if we hold off on making 
> > this change. Wed of next week would be prefect if yall don't mind waiting. 
> > I'll update the scripts at that point to reflect this change.
> > 
> > I don't see a command to manually change this behavior to mimic how it 
> > currently works once this change is made. So if such a command/option does 
> > exist then I probably can fix the scripts real quick to make that change.
> 
> udhcpc should take those flags on the command line as well:
> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c#n1147

Franklin, please confirm we can proceed with this change - did you get a 
chance to test your scripts?

-- 
Denys