[PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[akuster]

From: akuster <akuster@kona.kama-aina.net>

Signed-off-by: akuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg | 1 +
 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg   | 1 +
 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb | 2 ++
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..775e487d601
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+CONFIG_PGREP=y
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..da008c30cd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+CONFIG_REV=y
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
index aeea40fbc15..8e23b0d4a28 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ SRC_URI = "https://busybox.net/downloads/busybox-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=tarball \
            file://0001-du-l-works-fix-to-use-145-instead-of-144.patch \
            file://0001-sysctl-ignore-EIO-of-stable_secret-below-proc-sys-ne.patch \
            file://0001-hwclock-make-glibc-2.31-compatible.patch \
+           file://rev.cfg \
+           file://pgrep.cfg \
 "
 SRC_URI_append_libc-musl = " file://musl.cfg "
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Diego Sueiro]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 06:46 AM, akuster wrote:

>
> From: akuster <akuster@kona.kama-aina.net>
> 
> Signed-off-by: akuster <akuster808@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Diego Sueiro <diego.sueiro@arm.com>

> ---
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg | 1 +
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg   | 1 +
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb | 2 ++
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
> b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..775e487d601
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +CONFIG_PGREP=y
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..da008c30cd3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +CONFIG_REV=y
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> index aeea40fbc15..8e23b0d4a28 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ SRC_URI =
> "https://busybox.net/downloads/busybox-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=tarball \
>             file://0001-du-l-works-fix-to-use-145-instead-of-144.patch \
>
> file://0001-sysctl-ignore-EIO-of-stable_secret-below-proc-sys-ne.patch \
>             file://0001-hwclock-make-glibc-2.31-compatible.patch \
> +           file://rev.cfg \
> +           file://pgrep.cfg \
>  "
>  SRC_URI_append_libc-musl = " file://musl.cfg "
>
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
>

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Andrej Valek]

Hello,

Why are you not enabling these configs correctly via defconfig?

Regard,
Andrej

-----Original Message-----
From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Diego Sueiro
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 11:08 AM
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 06:46 AM, akuster wrote:

>
> From: akuster <akuster@kona.kama-aina.net>
> 
> Signed-off-by: akuster <akuster808@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Diego Sueiro <diego.sueiro@arm.com>

> ---
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg | 1 +
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg   | 1 +
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb | 2 ++
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
> b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..775e487d601
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/pgrep.cfg
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +CONFIG_PGREP=y
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..da008c30cd3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/rev.cfg
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +CONFIG_REV=y
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> index aeea40fbc15..8e23b0d4a28 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.32.0.bb
> @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ SRC_URI =
> "https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbusybox.net%2Fdownloads%2Fbusybox-%24&amp;data=02%7C01%7Candrej.valek%40siemens.com%7C80ba39dac31e43e1548d08d870e9e36a%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C637383497126679103&amp;sdata=lfT1ZQw1pl%2BkmM5xMuBMWX1kWlEqeyzgfhOX%2B%2FFFHYg%3D&amp;reserved=0{PV}.tar.bz2;name=tarball \
>             file://0001-du-l-works-fix-to-use-145-instead-of-144.patch \
>            
> file://0001-sysctl-ignore-EIO-of-stable_secret-below-proc-sys-ne.patch \
>             file://0001-hwclock-make-glibc-2.31-compatible.patch \
> +           file://rev.cfg \
> +           file://pgrep.cfg \
>  "
>  SRC_URI_append_libc-musl = " file://musl.cfg "
>  
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
>

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 16:48 +0000, Andrej Valek wrote:
> Why are you not enabling these configs correctly via defconfig?

I'd wondered about that. I didn't really want to block the fixes on
that discussion and am trying to pick the best places for discussion
but I'd take patches tweaking this.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Andre McCurdy]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 6:25 AM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 16:48 +0000, Andrej Valek wrote:
> > Why are you not enabling these configs correctly via defconfig?
>
> I'd wondered about that. I didn't really want to block the fixes on
> that discussion and am trying to pick the best places for discussion
> but I'd take patches tweaking this.

It would be good to clarify this. At one stage the advice was "the
more fragmented the better". Does that no longer apply?

  https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/topic/72273944#68672

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:55 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 6:25 AM Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 16:48 +0000, Andrej Valek wrote:
> > > Why are you not enabling these configs correctly via defconfig?
> > 
> > I'd wondered about that. I didn't really want to block the fixes on
> > that discussion and am trying to pick the best places for
> > discussion
> > but I'd take patches tweaking this.
> 
> It would be good to clarify this. At one stage the advice was "the
> more fragmented the better". Does that no longer apply?
> 
>   https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/topic/72273944#68672
> 

The fragments need to be useful. We could create a fragment per config
option but that would clearly not be particularly useful/usable. Its a
question of common sense, which is hard to document explicitly :/.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Andre McCurdy]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:55 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 6:25 AM Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 16:48 +0000, Andrej Valek wrote:
> > > > Why are you not enabling these configs correctly via defconfig?
> > >
> > > I'd wondered about that. I didn't really want to block the fixes on
> > > that discussion and am trying to pick the best places for
> > > discussion
> > > but I'd take patches tweaking this.
> >
> > It would be good to clarify this. At one stage the advice was "the
> > more fragmented the better". Does that no longer apply?
> >
> >   https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/topic/72273944#68672
> >
>
> The fragments need to be useful. We could create a fragment per config
> option but that would clearly not be particularly useful/usable. Its a
> question of common sense, which is hard to document explicitly :/.

We have individual config fragments for sha1 and sha256 based on your
advice in 2015. Has that been useful or usable?

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: add rev and pgrep

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 13:04 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:55 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 6:25 AM Richard Purdie
> > > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 16:48 +0000, Andrej Valek wrote:
> > > > > Why are you not enabling these configs correctly via
> > > > > defconfig?
> > > > 
> > > > I'd wondered about that. I didn't really want to block the
> > > > fixes on
> > > > that discussion and am trying to pick the best places for
> > > > discussion
> > > > but I'd take patches tweaking this.
> > > 
> > > It would be good to clarify this. At one stage the advice was
> > > "the
> > > more fragmented the better". Does that no longer apply?
> > > 
> > >   https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/topic/72273944#68672
> > > 
> > 
> > The fragments need to be useful. We could create a fragment per
> > config
> > option but that would clearly not be particularly useful/usable.
> > Its a
> > question of common sense, which is hard to document explicitly :/.
> 
> We have individual config fragments for sha1 and sha256 based on your
> advice in 2015. Has that been useful or usable?

I said I was torn, there was a second opinion that the fragments in
question were useful so we ran with that. I didn't say "the more the
better". My comment was specifically directed at keeping the login
pieces separate which I do still believe is the right move.

The distro situation was different 5 years ago, it would be interesting
to see if any layers did end up overriding the checksum pieces. If they
didn't, they likely can be merged IMO. Or maybe there should be one
checksum fragment with our defaults in?

Cheers,

Richard