<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Martin Jansa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.jansa@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:43:58PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:<br>
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 01:15 +0300, Andrei Gherzan wrote:<br>
> > And to move a little further, busybox should be configured with<br>
> > CONFIG_HWCLOCK=y only if it makes sense for that MACHINE. In my<br>
> > opinion this is machine specific.<br>
><br>
> That's a DISTRO decision. I suspect most that have binary feeds would<br>
> prefer to have a single busybox binary per architecture, and accept the<br>
> few wasted bytes on machines without RTC, than to make it MACHINE<br>
> specific and end up building it multiple times.<br>
<br>
</div>Agreed.<br>
<br>
It would be better to package initscript + hwclock to separate packages<br>
and then pull it to image only for machines with RTC.. but not making<br>
whole busybox machine specific.<br>
<br>
Another advantage of this would be option to use busybox-hwclock as utility<br>
and hwclock-systemd instead of busybox-hwclock-init for images which are<br>
using systemd.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you all. It makes sense to keep busybox machine independent. I agree. Now if i package this init script separately how would it be pulled in by images? Think this could brake some image which now relay on this being pulled in by busybox. </div>
<div><br></div><div>ag</div></div>