busybox Digest, Vol 13, Issue 57

Bernhard Fischer rep.nop at aon.at
Mon Aug 28 20:35:10 UTC 2006


On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:27:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Monday 28 August 2006 12:58 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:

>> Personally, i'd be reluctant to accept *any* re-impl of e.g. that
>> functionality if it does not impose a size-improvement.
>
>How about "not using getopt from libc at all"?  That's the real motivation.  
>We're now wrapping getopt deeply enough that it's easier to just do it 
>ourselves (and not permute our arguments either).

In the usual few setups that i happen to know, libc already has to
implement getopt for use by non-busybox applications installed along
busybox. So, as long as a forked getopt() impl is optional and -- if
turned off in busybox -- does not impose any size increase and is *at*
*most* size-neutral if we provide an in-busybox impl to other applets
(via e.g. making busybox PIE, have a patch for doing that lingering
somewhere), then it's ok with me.

If it adds to the size either way, then i will not use it, fwiw

Let's not delve into getopt until more stingent stuff is sorted out,
pretty please!

TIA,



More information about the busybox mailing list