Re: finer grained udeb's?
David Whedon wrote:
> While working on support for dhclient in debian-installer I noticed that
> busybox will need to have 'expr' added. I wonder how this should be handled.
> I guess it makes sense to add 'expr' since it is only a few k, and so far pump
> hasn't worked for me (could still be user error at this point.), but at some
> point we may see that busybox needs to be more modular?
Its hard and maybe counterproductive to break up busybox, it would be
best if built busybox with everything we needed from the start.
If that wasnt suitable then maybe we could have a cut down version and a
full version with everything, the full version could be fetched if
needed and replace the cutdown version.
I was thinking it may be usefull if busybox did a provides for each
busybox module, that way other udebs can check that busybox is installed
and supports this function.
e.g. busybox has mkfs.minix and there are some ext2 tools that are
floating around that might go in sooner or later, if we wanted to
format to reiserfs we we would need to depend on an external mkfs.reiser
(or whatever), so if busybox did the same it would be more consistent.
I guess if there is only one busybox we can always just make the
assumption of what busybox provides.
> A similar, perhaps more important, and easier to implement situation exists with
> kernel modules. If someone wants only the eepro100 module, will there be
> separate kernel modules?
Yea, there was an email that touchec on this a week or so ago, we want
to handle kernel modules as individual packages or groups of kernel
modules might be in one package.