Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] busybox: update to 1.19.3

[Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>]

On 11/28/2011 11:04 PM, Anders Darander wrote:
> * Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>  [111129 06:47]:
>> On 11/23/2011 12:59 AM, Anders Darander wrote:
>>> * Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>   [111122 21:36]:
>>>> On 11/22/2011 06:34 AM, Anders Darander wrote:
>>>>> This updates busybox to the latest stable, 1.19.3.
>
>>>>> Among other things, there should be rudimentary support in syslogd for
>>>>> systemd, by enabling CONFIG_FEATURE_SYSTEMD.
>
>>>> How much size does this add to busybox by having it enabled by default?
>
>>> Enabling FEATURE_SYSTEMD in busybox costs 192 bytes in my tests in
>>> qemux86.
>
>>>> Is it possible to conditional add a config fragment if systemd is
>>>> enabled ad the DISTRO/IMAGE_FEATURE level?
>
>>>> More info is required.
>
> Any more comment on this one? Otavio replied earlier that if it was a
> small cost, he would prefer to have it on by default. Otherwise, any
> suggestions for DISTRO/IMAGE_FEATURE?
>
Sorry for not being clear on this on, yes to the SYSTEMD change, it's 
small enough and something we are considering. As Phil points out in the 
follow-up to this, most are using custom defconfig's that we should just 
go ahead and enable this for future flexibility.

>>>>> Changes:
>>>>> v2: * Checked the new defconfig (removed settings implying CFLAGS and
>>>>>        ARCH). The new defconfig should be as close as possible to the old one,
>>>>>        with the exception of some new utils/options.
>>>> Can you clearly enumerate what new utils and options and what their size
>>>> impact on the busybox image is.
>
> I'll remove all features that you didn't OK (see below), unless we get
> some more replies/wishes in the next day. (Thus I plan to send a v3 this
> week, if times allow it).
>
> Just to clarify it once more, the choice of which new features to enable
> was done by trying to judge if they were reasonable, or seemed
> helpfull/usefull enough. I'm not normally running with the defconfig
> (apart from testing this patch), I'm using a heavily customized and
> often minimized defconfig.
>
>>> Apart from the FEATURE_SYSTEMD discussed above, these are the other new
>>> options that I kept the new busybox default on (i.e. these are enabled,
>>> while I turned of quite a few other options that automatically got
>>> enabled). All costs are evaluted using qemux86, and the busybox binary
>>> size is checked in the packages-split/busybox/bin directory.
>
>>> I don't mind disabling any of these feature in a v3, if
>>> desired/requested. Anyway, I'm running a completely custom config for my
>>> normal uses...
>
>>> FEATURE_RTMINMAX, support RTMIN[+n] RTMAX[-n] signals, claimed to cost
>>> ~250 bytes
>
>> I can see these being useful
>
>>> FEATURE_REVERSE_SEARCH claimed to cost ~0.5k
>
>> Why is this needed?
>
> Not needed, just nice to have. But I'll remove it in v3.
>
>>> FEATURE_AR_CREATE, enable ar to create files, ~2.5k
>
>>> FEATURE_SEAMLESS_XZ enable xz compression in tar, no measured cost.
>
>>> XZ and UNXZ, enable xz compression, 8k
>
>> This is the one and the ar create above that sticks out, are these
>> needed in the general case or just vfor your config?
>
> Shouldn't be needed. I just left it enabled as all other
> FEATURE_SEAMLESS's was enabled. I'll disable these two in v3.
>
>>> FGCONSOLE, print active console number, 128 bytes
>
>>> FEATURE_LOADFONT_PSF2, FEATURE_LOADFONT_RAW, cost 576 bytes
>
>> Seems resonable, but why did we not need this before, what changed?
>
> Not really sure what the change is (normally I'm only working on
> headless systems, thus no need for fonts). The two FEATURE_LOADFONT_*
> options were not available in the old defconfig. I'll leave these two in
> v3, as you thought the seemd reasonable.
>
For minimal, it's good to assume headless, then we should not need the 
LOADFONT. I thought it was needed for headless as well.

>>> FEATURE_VI_ASK_TERMINAL, last resort to find terminal size, 352 bytes
>
>> Not sure about this and the FGCONSOLE above.
>
> Sure, I'll remove these two.
>
>>> BLOCKDEV, perform some ioctls with block devices, cost 480 bytes
>
>> Again is this useful in the general case?
>
> Same as previously, an arbitrary choice. I'll remove it in v3.
>
>
Thanks for your efforts.

Sau!

>