From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:30:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 10/10] busybox: support only one version In-Reply-To: <87y4w1m2jo.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <1404237789-15563-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1404237789-15563-11-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <87oawxntvt.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20140710171848.75381ecb@free-electrons.com> <20140710155650.GA28300@free.fr> <87y4w1m2jo.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20140711093004.2c1f891c@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Peter Korsgaard, On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:33:47 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > If that is accepted, I'll work on this. > > Fine by me. I think we should also be more careful about when we > consider the Busybox variant equivalent - E.G. we used to hide all web > servers (but not anymore), and we still hide the ISC dhcp package even > though busybox's udhcpd/c are very different in configuration that it. That being said, the "full-blown" versions are never equivalent to the Busybox ones. Take "bash" for example. One can hardly say that Busybox ash is equivalent to bash. Though for most practical purposes, having the Busybox ash is sufficient in embedded systems. On one hand, hiding packages is good for newcomers so they are encouraged to use Busybox by default for most things (which also happens to be the configuration that most of us are using/testing I guess). On the other hand, hiding packages may make those newcomers not notice the entire scope of packages we have in Buildroot. We could also switch to use some Config.in comment to say that "bash could be available if Busybox show others was enabled" or something like that. But that would add a lot of comment and clutter menuconfig quite a bit. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com