On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:43:58PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 01:15 +0300, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > > > And to move a little further, busybox should be configured with > > > CONFIG_HWCLOCK=y only if it makes sense for that MACHINE. In my > > > opinion this is machine specific. > > > > That's a DISTRO decision. I suspect most that have binary feeds would > > prefer to have a single busybox binary per architecture, and accept the > > few wasted bytes on machines without RTC, than to make it MACHINE > > specific and end up building it multiple times. > > Agreed. > > It would be better to package initscript + hwclock to separate packages > and then pull it to image only for machines with RTC.. but not making > whole busybox machine specific. > > Another advantage of this would be option to use busybox-hwclock as utility > and hwclock-systemd instead of busybox-hwclock-init for images which are > using systemd. > > Thank you all. It makes sense to keep busybox machine independent. I agree. Now if i package this init script separately how would it be pulled in by images? Think this could brake some image which now relay on this being pulled in by busybox. ag
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
