From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bugzilla at busybox.net Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 18:44:05 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [Bug 11836] Embedded Shell Scripts in BusyBox In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=11836 Yann E. MORIN changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Yann E. MORIN --- Max, All, > Beside the benefit of additional free space on the target filesystem (due > to the compression of the scripts), As I said: if you are really concerned about the size of the scripts that you need them to be compressed, you will probably better benefit from a compressed filesystem to begin with, like squashfs, which would compress everything, from busybox itself, to the libraries it uses like libc et al. to all the files on the systems, and not just the few scripts that are embedded in the busybox binary. Honestly, I doubt embedding the scripts in the busybox binary wins over having a squashfs, but I'd like to see numbers. > another advantage is that it is not necessary to take care about script > file permissions (there is no need to set execute-permissions when the > scripts are embedded into the BusyBox binary). If you can't track the executable bit on your scripts, you have a big problem in your tooling and/or process and/or build environment. Again, I am not opposed to having support for embedded scripts, but I'd like to see a *convincing* argument... BTW, this is not a bug, but an enhancement request. We usually take new features as patches sent to the mailing list, so I'm closing this bug. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.