Re: busybox upload and further maintenance
08.05.2022 19:39, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> (2022-05-08):
I don't understand what is holding an upload right now, -- the salsa
busybox repository is more than 3 months old now. I think it is ready
for an upload, - I think we should do it and deal with any issues
which may come.
Without knowing about the busybox situation specifically, it happens
that people prepare stuff but don't feel the need or confidence to
upload, so they can stay around for a while.
Yeah, I know this feeling very well, been there myself ;)
I prepared some changes in a separate branch (for now) named "mjt",
it is on top of current master - the changes I'd do in there.
There are many other things in there which needs to be reviewed.
Yet I don't see any reason to hold the upload further.
I'd love to hear opinion by Chris Boot who did most recent work
in there, - if it is okay for him if I merge my branch into
master. And next, let's upload this thing. I can do that, or
Chris can do that, - provided he is not against me doing some
stuff in there.
In d/patches/ there's a hackish patch temp-deb-installer-hack.patch
which seriously needs addressing I think (not in this upload though),
-- has anything been done in this direction, to get values from the
kernel command line in some more sane place than shell environment?
Oh, what a blast from the past. It's been temporary for 5 years…
Yeah. As usual :)
I'm still not familiar with d-i and its internals, so I need some
help there. At least some discussion should be happening, I think,
because this seems to be a serious change for the d-i. Yet keeping
this patch does not seem to be a good idea.
Well, I can understand the feeling but unless maintaining the patch
itself is a burden (which I kind of doubt, given it's quite targeted),
in which case I'm happy to help, it only affects the udeb, and makes
sure we don't break preseeding gratuitously…
The prob is not the burden of maintaining it, I'm okay with that one.
It is just that the whole thing seems wrong :)
Again, I'm definitely not arguing for dropping it right now, but we
either plan to do this some other way, or we don't. If we do, we can
start some discussion/review in this area.
The argument "it only affects the udeb" is lame :) Udeb does not need
to suffer - neither this one nor any other udeb, and actually it does
not only affect udeb, it affect busybox as a whole, and the upstream
change which we revert is there for a reason :)
Let's upload the thing and see what happen.
I'm ready to help and to bring it up if it falls into pieces :)
Thanks!
/mjt
Reply to: