[BusyBox] [patch] new applet mountpoint
floydpink at gmail.com
Fri Aug 19 16:01:53 UTC 2005
Wow, I hate to jump into the middle of a firefight, but so be it.
I agree with Bernard here, you could make the argument that almost
anything can be written with a shell script and using other utilities.
A busybox applet written in C is just another alternative way to do
it. The nice thing is if you feel so inclined on your system, don't
build it into busybox. I don't build probably 3/4 of Busybox for my
embedded system. However, I also much prefer a simple applet to a
bunch of scripts on my system, especially when it can all be embedded
in the multi-call binary.
This seems like a small and at least somewhat common system utility.
Exactly what I associate with Busybox.
Now, if your argument is poor code, choose that rather than simply
stating this could be written a different way. Moreover, why not
simply state issues that you see and/or post an updated patch, rather
than falling to pure accusations such as "needlessly
inefficient (pointless memory allocations)".
On 8/19/05, Rainer Weikusat <rainer.weikusat at sncag.com> wrote:
> > Well, so let's zap head and tail too?
> Well, there may be reasons why someone would want to not have tail,
> but that's not the same question as "Why mountpoint.c", especially
> considering that your implementation is both broken due to various
> races (the stat/ lstat calls, for instance), needlessly
> inefficient (pointless memory allocations) and does some stuff which
> is hardly useful (like printing a single \n with printf
> (putchar, anyone?) when told to be quiet) and does some things which
> are just weird (why the 'stat/lstat'-combination)?
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at mail.busybox.net
More information about the busybox