On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 13:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> To put this another way, I think it is probably reasonable that we >> >> should be able to build an image from OE-Core with basic functionality >> >> like networking without busybox? >> > >> > That's what I'd support. If everything you need for the functionality with >> > busy >> > box is in oe-core, to me, it doesn't make sense to go outside core to get >> > that >> > same functionality without busybox. >> >> irrespective of this change. I see yet another configuration with this >> into OE-core, overall OE-Core should get smaller >> and case does not sound convincing to me. You dont want to use busybox >> in a fairly large image which has other GPLv2 software in >> it. Thats fine but doesnt look like a common usecase to me > > Nobody mentioned GPLv2, that isn't relevant here. > > I have heard OE being dismissed since it can't produce an image without > busybox in it. The implication is we can't build "big" Linux, only small > embedded things. The pieces we need busybox for are tiny and should be > easy to replace (like this does). > > So I can see a fairly compelling argument for OE-Core to be able to > generate a busybox free image with standard functionality just from a PR > perspective. From what I gather we have people willing to test and > maintain it too...
If people were demanding it, it would have been moved for meta-networking ages ago, it seems it is not the case. So my vote is: - move to meta-networking - for 2.1 we see if it goes to core or not -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core