[BusyBox] id -G patch
rob at landley.net
Fri Jul 1 01:21:36 UTC 2005
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 03:02, Marc Leeman wrote:
> > Maybe I did not explain myself very well, sorry for that (and also that
> I only read mails diagonally, so I might miss some of the finer details
> and sensitivities :)
> > you had to go and test it!).
> No problem, I needed to test it anyway otherwise I would have support
> hurrassing me anyway, now I can just tell them RTFM >:)
> > What's the main policy of busybox?
> That's really up to Eric, I think.
The rule of thumb I've been going by (and keep in mind I've been offline for a
week and a half, but am catching up now) is that we want to get the best bang
for the byte. We're trying to fit the most functionality in the least space
Size is a cost, and our user base tends to be on a budget there, so it's best
if you can prune back features to get a smaller size (choose what you spend
your size budget on). That said, being able to do more isn't a bad thing.
There are other things that are nice: being faster, having more features,
being standards compliant... It's nice to have the OPTION to compile busybox
in other ways than the absolutely minimal way. But sacrificing the ability
to get it down really tiny would defeat the purpose.
A patch that reduces the size without sacrificing features or speed is almost
always going to be well received. :)
More information about the busybox