[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

recently udev started to depend on util-linux for libblkid. Since then
there are lots of binaries built and installs that did not asked for.
Here's an incomplete list of such binaries:

blockdev, fdformat, fsck.minix, isosize, mkfs, mkfs.bfs, mkfs.minix,
mkswap, swaplabel, sfdisk, getopt, getopt-parse.bash, getopt-parse.tcsh,
cal logger look mcookie namei whereis

Now I am wondering about the best way to change this so that only the
libraries are built and installed unless util-linux is configured
otherwise. I am looking for a solution that can be accepted in buildbot.
And if changes to util-linux are needed, then those should have a chance
to be accepted upstream in util-linux. What would you advice?


Regards,
Sven

[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Gustavo Zacarias]

On 2012-04-16 12:17, Sven Neumann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> recently udev started to depend on util-linux for libblkid. Since 
> then
> there are lots of binaries built and installs that did not asked for.
> Here's an incomplete list of such binaries:
>
> blockdev, fdformat, fsck.minix, isosize, mkfs, mkfs.bfs, mkfs.minix,
> mkswap, swaplabel, sfdisk, getopt, getopt-parse.bash, 
> getopt-parse.tcsh,
> cal logger look mcookie namei whereis
>
> Now I am wondering about the best way to change this so that only the
> libraries are built and installed unless util-linux is configured
> otherwise. I am looking for a solution that can be accepted in 
> buildbot.
> And if changes to util-linux are needed, then those should have a 
> chance
> to be accepted upstream in util-linux. What would you advice?
>
>
> Regards,
> Sven

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-October/046854.html
Regards.

[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 13:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote:

> > recently udev started to depend on util-linux for libblkid. Since 
> > then
> > there are lots of binaries built and installs that did not asked for.
> > Here's an incomplete list of such binaries:
> >
> > blockdev, fdformat, fsck.minix, isosize, mkfs, mkfs.bfs, mkfs.minix,
> > mkswap, swaplabel, sfdisk, getopt, getopt-parse.bash, 
> > getopt-parse.tcsh,
> > cal logger look mcookie namei whereis
> >
> > Now I am wondering about the best way to change this so that only the
> > libraries are built and installed unless util-linux is configured
> > otherwise. I am looking for a solution that can be accepted in 
> > buildbot.
> > And if changes to util-linux are needed, then those should have a 
> > chance
> > to be accepted upstream in util-linux. What would you advice?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sven
> 
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-October/046854.html

Thanks. This works for us. But I would like to see such a change to go
into buildroot and I understand why this patch has not been accepted in
this form. The general idea of overriding the install command is nice,
however the newly introduced option BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_BASIC is
somewhat misleading. It gives the impression that it would select the
basic utilities and instead no utility will be installed unless it is
selected. It should probably be renamed and other options like
BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_LOGIN_UTILS would have to depend on it or select
it.

Nevertheless, thanks a lot for your help with this patch.


Regards,
Sven

[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Gustavo Zacarias]

On 2012-04-17 05:35, Sven Neumann wrote:

>> 
>> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-October/046854.html
>
> Thanks. This works for us. But I would like to see such a change to 
> go
> into buildroot and I understand why this patch has not been accepted 
> in
> this form. The general idea of overriding the install command is 
> nice,
> however the newly introduced option BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_BASIC is
> somewhat misleading. It gives the impression that it would select the
> basic utilities and instead no utility will be installed unless it is
> selected. It should probably be renamed and other options like
> BR2_PACKAGE_UTIL_LINUX_LOGIN_UTILS would have to depend on it or 
> select
> it.
>
> Nevertheless, thanks a lot for your help with this patch.
>
>
> Regards,
> Sven

Cool, feedback at last ;)
Yes, i should make the other options depend on UTIL_LINUX_BASIC.
However there's a choice in front regarding UTIL_LINUX_BASIC - with all 
the util-linux options disabled and this one enabled you still get 
binary stuff installed because they're, well, basic utilities always 
built by util-linux.
So the option would be to keep the basic option as is or add more 
granular options for all those other tiny utilities described in the 
help and remove/keep them in a post hook.
I'd rather go for the second option since not many people will want 
mkfs.bfs, mkfs.minix and those utilities most of the time, even when 
installing others.
Regards.

Ideas?

[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Sven Neumann]

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 08:08 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote:

> Yes, i should make the other options depend on UTIL_LINUX_BASIC.
> However there's a choice in front regarding UTIL_LINUX_BASIC - with all 
> the util-linux options disabled and this one enabled you still get 
> binary stuff installed because they're, well, basic utilities always 
> built by util-linux.
> So the option would be to keep the basic option as is or add more 
> granular options for all those other tiny utilities described in the 
> help and remove/keep them in a post hook.
> I'd rather go for the second option since not many people will want 
> mkfs.bfs, mkfs.minix and those utilities most of the time, even when 
> installing others.

Adding an option for each and every utility would probably be too much.
But we could introduce options for each of the sub-directories in
util-linux (disk-utils, misc-utils, etc). Then one could use 'make -D
(subdir) install' to install all the utilities from a sub-directory.


Regards,
Sven

[Buildroot] util-linux builds and installs lots of unwanted binaries

[Gustavo Zacarias]

On 2012-04-17 14:08, Sven Neumann wrote:

> Adding an option for each and every utility would probably be too 
> much.
> But we could introduce options for each of the sub-directories in
> util-linux (disk-utils, misc-utils, etc). Then one could use 'make -D
> (subdir) install' to install all the utilities from a sub-directory.
>
>
> Regards,
> Sven

Just sent a new version of the patch.
I'll just steer away from going all detailed on the options and kept it 
simple with an "install utilities" option.
If someone needs util-linux i take it they're ready to pay the price 
either in time (removing unused) or space for it.
Regards.