[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] busybox: Include setsid and cttyhack in defconfig

[Koen Kooi]

Op 16 jun. 2012, om 16:47 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:

> 
> 
> On 06/16/2012 10:47 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 06/16/2012 09:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
>>>> configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
>>>> every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
>>>> bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
>>>> quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
>>>> busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
>>>> other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
>>>> the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
>>>> get a smaller binary that way as well.
>> 
>> in retrospect I agree with Phil on gradual bloat. busybox and other
>> kconfig based
>> packages will always have fine tunings that we can never say one size
>> fits all unless
>> you enable everything and I think the purpose of using kconfig in
>> those packages is to provide this fine level of configuration
>> 
>>> 
>>> You are correct that poky-tiny would benefit from a smaller config. My
>>> original intent was to update the busybox recipe to use the new
>>> merge-config.sh that we pushed to the upstream Linux kernel (which
>>> should work with busybox as it uses the same config mechanism). This
>>> would allow us to maintain a base busybox config with a several config
>>> fragments that can be easily added via DISTRO_FEATURES rather than the
>>> complicated hack that is in busybox now for handling DISTRO_FEATURES. I
>>> prefer this approach as it reduces (if not eliminates) the need for the
>>> proliferation of busybox.bbappend files.
>>> 
>> 
>> . using merge-config.sh will probably make things better but until
>> then I don't think its a bad thing to have bbappends in current
>> scenario
>> 
>>> However, this is a larger project and my immediate goal is to get
>>> poky-tiny into better shape in terms of the initial experience. This is
>>> why I originally implemented it as a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE as that would
>>> migrate naturally to the config fragment approach. You and others
>>> objected to that approach, and I do understand not wanting to complicate
>>> the DISTRO_FEATURE logic further.
>>> 
>>> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
>>> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
>>> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
>>> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.
>> 
>> I think best approach here is to have the defconfig of own in
>> poky-tiny layer. It will
>> be a contained change.
> 
> Note that poky-tiny is not currently in its own layer, but is included
> in the meta-intel layer. I will look into ways to accomplish this
> without adding to the core busybox config and not having to break out
> poky-tiny into its own layer.

What is it with you intel folks (bless their hearts) wanting to combine BSP and distro? baerion, guacamayo and poky-tiny all force you to include the distro stuff if you want any of their recipes. I don't want to have all the hostnames on my boards changed to 'baerion' when I build mediatomb!