Re: [PATCH 1/2] ifupdown: import recipe

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 14:15 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 13:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> To put this another way, I think it is probably reasonable that we
> >>>> should be able to build an image from OE-Core with basic functionality
> >>>> like networking without busybox?
> >>> 
> >>> That's what I'd support. If everything you need for the functionality with busy
> >>> box is in oe-core, to me, it doesn't make sense to go outside core to get that
> >>> same functionality without busybox.
> >> 
> >> irrespective of this change. I see yet another configuration with this
> >> into OE-core, overall OE-Core should get smaller
> >> and case does not sound convincing to me. You dont want to use busybox
> >> in a fairly large image which has other GPLv2 software in
> >> it. Thats fine but doesnt look like a common usecase to me
> > 
> > Nobody mentioned GPLv2, that isn't relevant here.
> 
> I assumed thats one reason to not include it. I am trying to understand reasoning to
> not include busybox. Or is is just because its a poster child for litigations.

The litigation issues surrounding it certainly don't do it any favours,
but the main issue is that if busybox is there, we're not seen as a
"proper/full" linux.

> > I have heard OE being dismissed since it can't produce an image without
> > busybox in it. The implication is we can't build "big" Linux, only small
> > embedded things. The pieces we need busybox for are tiny and should be
> > easy to replace (like this does).
> 
> as we include other alternative providers, they get preference over busybox applets
> even if busybox is part of it.

The problem is some people don't want any busybox.

> > So I can see a fairly compelling argument for OE-Core to be able to
> > generate a busybox free image with standard functionality just from a PR
> > perspective. From what I gather we have people willing to test and
> > maintain it too…
> 
> PR I see. I was searching for technical reasons.

Well, its technical but related to the image of the project too. Can
OE-Core today produce a "standard linux desktop" type "full" featured
filesystem? I cannot honestly say it can due to this reason, busybox has
to be there. There are some people who do discount OE because of this.
This isn't new, I remember Marcin amongst others working on this. We're
close, but close doesn't mean we can answer "yes" to the question and I
think it would be nice to be able to do so clearly.

Cheers,

Richard