Re: [PATCH 1/1] busybox: Include setsid and cttyhack in defconfig

[Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>]

On 06/16/2012 10:47 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/16/2012 09:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.
>>>
>>> Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
>>> configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
>>> every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
>>> bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
>>> quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.
>>>
>>> So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
>>> busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
>>> other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
>>> the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
>>> get a smaller binary that way as well.
> 
> in retrospect I agree with Phil on gradual bloat. busybox and other
> kconfig based
> packages will always have fine tunings that we can never say one size
> fits all unless
> you enable everything and I think the purpose of using kconfig in
> those packages is to provide this fine level of configuration
> 
>>
>> You are correct that poky-tiny would benefit from a smaller config. My
>> original intent was to update the busybox recipe to use the new
>> merge-config.sh that we pushed to the upstream Linux kernel (which
>> should work with busybox as it uses the same config mechanism). This
>> would allow us to maintain a base busybox config with a several config
>> fragments that can be easily added via DISTRO_FEATURES rather than the
>> complicated hack that is in busybox now for handling DISTRO_FEATURES. I
>> prefer this approach as it reduces (if not eliminates) the need for the
>> proliferation of busybox.bbappend files.
>>
> 
> . using merge-config.sh will probably make things better but until
> then I don't think its a bad thing to have bbappends in current
> scenario
> 
>> However, this is a larger project and my immediate goal is to get
>> poky-tiny into better shape in terms of the initial experience. This is
>> why I originally implemented it as a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE as that would
>> migrate naturally to the config fragment approach. You and others
>> objected to that approach, and I do understand not wanting to complicate
>> the DISTRO_FEATURE logic further.
>>
>> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
>> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
>> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
>> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.
> 
> I think best approach here is to have the defconfig of own in
> poky-tiny layer. It will
> be a contained change.

Note that poky-tiny is not currently in its own layer, but is included
in the meta-intel layer. I will look into ways to accomplish this
without adding to the core busybox config and not having to break out
poky-tiny into its own layer.

I appreciate the careful thought and consideration.

Thanks,

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel