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

Re: boot-floppies, busybox size reduction status

> > earlier in this list it has been suggested to have a busybox-bf package in
> > addition to the normal busybox package. I would strongly encourage this,
> > though for different reasons:
> > 
What you suggest sounds reasonable to me.

> I wonder if we could use the .udeb for this purpose?  Adam?

I'm not Adam . . . . anyway we have discussed using udebs on b-f for
other things (dhcp clients) and I think the gerneral thought was that
we didn't want to.   Not a whole lot of good reasons not to, mostly it
is just easier to keep pulling in debs.  The path of least resistance
is to make busybox-bf.

I personally don't like the proliferation of -bf pacakges.  I'd rather
the b-f build system build all packages from source, perhap seven
applying patches before-hand when necessary.


Reply to: