Re: RFC: moving busybox into its own .deb
Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sun Jan 16, 2000 at 04:01:34PM +0100, Eric Delaunay wrote:
> > Erik Andersen wrote:
> > > I've been having a bit of difficulty managing busybox
> > > for the boot floppies.
> > >
> > > At the moment, I have my own busybox CVS source tree where I do primary
> > > development, and where I apply and test patches sent to me, and generally
> > > add/develop/break stuff. In addition, there is also the boot-floppies CVS
> > > source tree, to which contributions are added fairly regularly (which is a good
> > > thing, and makes both the boot-floppies and busybox better). However, this is
> > > also a real pain.
> > >
> > > When I make changes to my CVS tree, I have to manually merge the changes into
> > > the boot-floppies tree. When folks add changes to the boot-floppies tree, I
> > > have to manually merge those changes back into my local CVS tree. And in the
> > > process, of cource, things like $Id fields always get screwed up.
> > >
> > > I'd like to get some comments on my splitting busybox out from the
> > > boot-floppies tree, and instead being provided by a .deb (just like ash, the
> > > kernel, and several of the other tools). If I go ahead and split it out into a
> > > .deb, is this the type of change that would have to wait till after the potato
> > > release?
> > I have to objection you make a Debian package for your busybox provided the
> > fact that you build it based on the boot-floppies needs (i.e. configuration
> > file from boot-floppies tree).
> > IMO, you will have to add a "conflicts: sysvinit, fileutils" rule (maybe
> > others too) to ensure that your package will never be installed in a debian
> > system. That will break it I think.
> > This way, it will only be used in boot-floppies build process.
> Thanks for the support. I assume you mean "I have no objection to" instead of
> "I have to objection" (which have opposite meanings) based on the context of
Oops, sorry for the typo. It was not so late so don't know why I wrote that.
Sure I didn't read it again ;(((
> the rest of your message. The conflicts line would actually read something
> Conflicts: bsdutils, fileutils, findutils, grep, gzip, mount, procps,
> shellutils, sysklogd, sysutils, sysvinit, tar, textutils, util-linux
Hmm, util-linux provides fdisk which is used by boot-floppies. Hope it does
not prevent creation of the rootdisk.
> Yes, it would be exclusivly for the boot-floppies tree (just like ash is
> alledegly supposed to be exclusivly for the boot-floppies even though in
> practice that doesn't seem to be the case or else bugs like (Bug #50788) would
> be fixed already).
On old low memory systems like 386 and 486, ash could be an alternative to
bash, I guess. In this point of view, it should be as small as possible (think
about /bin/sh from Solaris, it does not support line editing either ;)).
Eric Delaunay | S'il n'y a pas de solution, c'est qu'il n'y
firstname.lastname@example.org | a pas de problème. Devise Shadok.