thoughts on reorganizing BB menuconfig structure?
rob at landley.net
Fri Mar 24 00:35:19 UTC 2006
On Thursday 23 March 2006 2:39 pm, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> as a followup to my earlier whine about the somewhat non-informative
> "Debian Utilities" BB config menu entry, i'd still like to see some
> shuffling around of the config entries to have them make more logical
Sounds long overdue.
> in some cases, a top-level entry is already perfect -- say "Module
> Utilities." no problem there. but from there, things get sort of
> the biggest problem, i think, is the arbitrary grouping of so many
> entries under "Coreutils", "Linux System Utilities" and "Miscellaneous
> Utilities." some thoughts (some large, some small):
> * drop "Debian Utilities" entirely and spread those entries elsewhere
Works for me.
> * move "dmesg" to "Logging Utilities"?
> * i don't consider "ar" to be an "Archival Utility". i see it more as
> a Development utility. how many people are actually using "ar" for
Nobody. But we don't currently have a lot of development utilities.
I'm slowly reading through the mondo make manual, and as usual my reaction to
reading a specification is to imagine how I'd implement it. But for right
now, I'm not seeing a big demand for this nor have I got the spare time. :)
By the way, "strings" is part of binutils, and when I make a development
system with busybox I have to zap the binutils version of strings to use the
busybox one. Just FYI.
> * how about an entire section devoted to "Shell Applets"? by that,
> i mean applets normally used, say, for shell programming:
> true, false, echo, expr, getopt, dirname, basename, length, env,
> printenv, printf, and lots more.
Sounds reasonable. (I'm working on replacing the four current busybox shells
with one scalable bbsh, and when I'm done it won't need its own menu...)
> that would cut down the size of "Coreutils" considerably.
> * how about a section on "Servers"? right now, it would be rather
> short (telnetd, udhcpd) but who knows what else might show up there?
dnsd. (Which I still need to get around to testing...)
> * several applets should be moved to "Process Utilities", such as
> "nice", "watch", etc. don't those qualify as "process" utilities?
Works for me.
> anyway, i can see lots of other adjustments but i'll just throw this
> out for now.
Gimme a patch, not a discussion. :)
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox