[BusyBox] Improving Our Development Process

Erik Andersen andersen at lineo.com
Wed Jan 24 17:31:06 UTC 2001


On Wed Jan 24, 2001 at 08:27:01AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 10:39:18AM -0500, Gennady Feldman wrote:
> > P.S. What do you guys/gals think about this?
> 
> I think this proposal is a much better idea than splitting the
> source across several repositories.  I'd like to make the follow
> suggestions:
> 
>  1) There should be two output options -- one which generates two
>     binaries (one suid and the other not) for the paranoid (at the
>     price of duplicated common code), and another which drops
>     permissions for non-suid processes.
> 
>  2) One Config.h file in the root directory which specifies all
>     the applets, rather than splitting them across directories.
> 
>  3) The functions of utility.c should be split into separate files
>     in a libbusybox subdirectory to get rid of the #ifdef X || Y
>     nastiness that is currently there (and often broken).

Sound good so far.

>  4) While we are at it, reworking the documentation wouldn't be a
>     bad idea either.  

Any proposals on how best to rework it.  Shall we simply revert to 
using .pod?  Shall we move to something more tried and true such
as latex?

As the project scales up to more and more apps, perhaps we should
consider swiping the Linux kernel configuration system, and use
that for enabling/disabling apps and features.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--





More information about the busybox mailing list