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

[PATCH 0/3] [first try] tiny busybox build system changes



Here's a very start of my attempts with busybox, in order to verify
everything is set up correctly, to introduce myself, and to establish
some sort of workflow.  I installed a git repository on our DMZ machine
(dunno if that's what meant as "git branch" -- since I'm - still - not
a DD, I don't have access to main git.debian.org repositories), and
prepared first small batch of changes (below).  The repository is
available as git://git.corpit.ru/debian-busybox.git , and all the
changes are currently in "master" branch (will change if needed).

I'm sending changes as patches and making them available in a git
tree.

As mentioned, first batch is trivial:

Michael Tokarev (3):
  [buildsys] don't copy .dotfiles from main source to the build directories
  [buildsys] don't copy but link source files into build directories
  [buildsys] remove trailing whitespaces from debian/rules

 debian/rules |    8 ++++----
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Now, I've a quite large plan to deal with current situation in
busybox.  For the next step, I'll prepare an annotated list of
config differences between static and deb builds with suggestions
of how to resolve each difference - first for stuff present in
static but not present in deb, next for the reverse.  This is
instead of actually making config changes directly, because each
change may be discussed and accepted/rejected separately, and
each change is just a one-liner - easier to review as a single
list than a set of suggested differences.

Once the differences will be agreed upon, it will be possible
to commit them and work further.  After each such "batched
change", the state of package will not be ideal (for example,
some unnecessary applets may be left enabled), but I think
it's easier to bring the configurations as closer together
as posible first, and decide what to trim (if anything at
all) later.

Thanks!

-- 
1.7.2.3


Reply to: