From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:35:16 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv3] busybox: improve support for telnetd In-Reply-To: <20150712080330.GA4008@free.fr> References: <1436660410-13431-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20150712080330.GA4008@free.fr> Message-ID: <55A242E4.1000903@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 07/12/15 10:03, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > Thomas, Alexey, All, > > On 2015-07-12 02:20 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: >> From: Alexey Brodkin >> >> If target has connection to the network it might be pretty useful to >> have telnet connection to it instead of serial console or even in >> addition to serial console. > [--SNIP--] >> diff --git a/package/busybox/busybox.mk b/package/busybox/busybox.mk >> index 92874cd..35f1e96 100644 >> --- a/package/busybox/busybox.mk >> +++ b/package/busybox/busybox.mk > [--SNIP--] >> +define BUSYBOX_ADJUST_TELNET_SECURETTY >> + if grep -q CONFIG_FEATURE_TELNETD_STANDALONE=y $(@D)/.config; then \ >> + for i in `seq 0 3` ; do \ >> + grep -q "pts/$$i" $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/securetty || \ >> + echo "pts/$$i" >> $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/securetty ; \ > > Why don't we simply add those four in our securetty, directly in our > skeleton? That renders securetty even more useless than it already is. Why don't we just remove CONFIG_FEATURE_SECURETTY from our default busybox config and get rid of all the securetty hacks? Regards, Arnout [snip] -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF