RFC Handle conflicting files with Busybox
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 RFC Latest0 of 2 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 2 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
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
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback.
Quoted 10 lines · Yann E. MORIN
Quoted 7 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.
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.
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).
Do you have an opinion on this specific topic ?
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.
Thanks,
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com