[Buildroot] [PATCH v2] Add option to copy config file to rootfs
Thomas De Schampheleire
patrickdepinguin at gmail.com
Fri Aug 1 04:45:43 UTC 2014
"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> schreef:
>On 2014-07-31 20:40 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
>> Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> schreef:
>> >Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,
>> >On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:55:21 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> >> >I think the case where one would want this file in the generated
>> >> >filesystem is a corner case, and that it would be better served with
>> >> >a post-build script.
>> >> I think this is a feature that deserves to be in Buildroot
>> >> directly. Just like rootfs-overlay used to be
>> >> something that people had to do manually from their
>> >> post build script, but later became a supported
>> >> feature because many people found it useful, or the
>> >> feature to set the root password, this is something that is
>> >> generally useful by many users, even those that don't fully know how
>> >> to use the post build script to it's full ability, or did not yet
>> >> realize the usefulness of the saving of the configuration.
>Great! Let's include in Buildroot all the cruft that a post-build script
>Sorry for the rant, really, but we introduced post-build scripts for a
>reason: so that users can further customise their rootfs with whatever
>they want to put/remove/tweak in there, without polluting Buildroot with
>And the root password, since you're speaking about it, is part of the
>behaviour of the target system. The .config is just sitting there, and
>serves no purpose in the running of the target system.
>(crosstool-NG: everyone can make mistakes in their infancy! ;-) )
>> >I don't really have a strong opinion on whether we should have this
>> >feature or not, but what bothers me is adding yet another global config
>> >option just for a small thing like that.
>> >If we were to include the .config file in the rootfs, could we do it
>> >unconditionally? Or would the .config file size be problematic?
>> Not do much the size, but as specified in the help text
>> the potential root password will be readable too. So if
>> you get a hand on the rootfs image, you can
>> determine the password very easily, which is
>> probably not acceptable by all.
>That, plus the fact the .config will also contain info from the packages
>in br2-external, too, which might be a bit sensitive, and a definitive
>no-no for production images.
>And I still believe this is more of a convenience option for internal
>use, or for development reasons. Production images will most probably
>never ever have this file in them (no more would they have
> 1. _I_ still _think_ this should be handled in a post-build script;
> 2. if we were to ever have this, this should *not* be unconditional;
> 3. it should default to 'n';
> 4. I will never ack this. :-p
/me backs down... :-)
More information about the buildroot