[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/5] coreutils: belongs to system tools, not development
Thomas Petazzoni
thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Tue Dec 3 10:12:16 UTC 2013
Dear Peter Korsgaard,
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:05:19 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> > We've always said that it was important to keep this option so that
> > newcomers don't enable things like coreutils, bash and so on, and use
> > what I'd consider the default "Buildroot experience", i.e Busybox.
>
> True.
>
> > What made you change your mind about this?
>
> It mainly dates back from when those busybox alternatives didn't get
> much testing, so were likely to fail. We default to having busybox
> enabled, but I don't think we really need to make it more difficult to
> use the alternatives.
>
> E.G. if we support bash/coreutils/.., then we should really support
> them.
I definitely agree with this last part, but I don't see how "really
supporting them" conflicts with the idea of hiding them by default to
avoid having newcomers confused by these.
If the amount of conflicts in package/Config.in is your concern, then I
believe I agree with Gustavoz suggestion of moving the dependency on
BUSYBOX_SHOW_OTHERS down to the individual package/<foo>/Config.in.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
More information about the buildroot
mailing list