RFC Handle conflicting files with Busybox
Get series with b4
b4 am 20171228170017.GE3428@scaerVersions newest first
- v1 RFC Latest1 of 2 patches 0 repliesNew
1 of 2 patches is in this archive. The cover letter announces 2.
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/2 | busybox: avoid conflict with other packages | +0 | 12 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [Buildroot] [RFC 0/2] Handle conflicting files with Busybox
Thomas, All,
On 2017-12-28 18:04 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
Quoted 11 lines
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback.
Quoted 5 lines · Yann E. MORIN
Quoted 5 lines
This RFC series is an attempt at solving this problem for Busybox. I have not fixed all packages yet: since it is a very boring task to do, I wanted to first get some feedback on whether the approach looks reasonable or not.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
If the feedback is positive, I'll go ahead and submit proper patches that fix all packages that conflict with Busybox.
As I previously said on IRC: I do not much like the big list we will now have to maintain; that's sad...
Even though I agree it's not nice to maintain, I think it's unavoidable if we want to solve the overwriting issue.
So that we are on the same line: I do agree with the underlying reason for the change, yes. I'm just trying to see if there are better ways to go with that.
Quoted 30 lines
Quoted 14 lines
However, I like the fact that we can get rid of the many dependencies in so many packages here and there. :-)
What I would have suggested, though, is to do what Baruch hinted at: use the noclobber install of Busybox, and then have Busybox depend on all the packages it provides applets for:
BUSYBOX_DEPENDENCIES = \ $(if $(BR2_PACKAGE_COREUTILS),coreutils) \ $(if $(BR2_PACKAGE_util_LINUX),util-linux) \ etc...But unfortunately, the noclobber install option is not usable:
Quoted 7 lines
- first, there is no way to cause a noclobber install;
- second, the noclobber is not accounted for in the case shell wrappers are used.
So, I'm afraid we don't have much choice but to do as your series does...
There is however one remaining debate: my patch series tweaks the Busybox configuration to not build the support for applets for which the functionality is provided by a full-featured program. But Baruch didn't like this tweaking of the Busybox configuration, and would prefer to not install the symlinks, and leave the Busybox configuration unchanged (which means we have lots of Busybox applets built into Busybox that are not really used on the target).
Quoted 1 line
Do you have an opinion on this specific topic ?
I prefer they be explicitly disabled as you did.
First, because this is a security issue that there is dead code: these applets are still usable by calling 'busybox foo' for example, and that is a security issue.
Second, yes it gains a bit of space. But that is not so compelling, becasue if you already have the big buddies enabled, a few kB lost inBusybox is not that much of a burden anyway...
Quoted 4 lines
Another question is whether we want to have this logic centralized in busybox.mk, or spread into the packages that provide the full-featured variants of the applets ? The latter may have some variable definition ordering issues though.
Please leave it centralised in busybox.mk.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'