> On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 13:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> 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 > > In general, I don't think it is a good idea for oe-core to be entirely > beholden to busybox or any other package, and I would be all in favour > of including an alternative implementation for everything that we depend > on busybox for.
thats a fine idea, > > In the specific case of ifupdown, the whole thing seems a little bit > 1990s and it's hard to avoid the sense that there are better ways to > solve that particular problem nowadays. But oe-core does already > include net-tools, which is if anything even more retro (and is in a > similar position vis-a-vis busybox) so there is precedent for including > this kind of thing. Yes although replacing net-tools with iproute2 would have been a better one. > > It's also not as if ifupdown is a large piece of software with a complex > web of ABI dependencies that will introduce some huge maintenance burden > in the future. So I can't see any real downside to adding it to > oe-core. It needs maintenance, and if maintainers are fine carrying it is fine too. Added price is future contributions to other areas/packages which have to keep working with this, and there will be patches rejected because they don’t work with this so there is some burden dispersed on development community > > p. > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
