[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
> like:
>     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
 delaunay@lix.polytechnique.fr | a pas de problème.   Devise Shadok.

Reply to: