From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:07:07 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/package/busybox In-Reply-To: <20080627124653.GA31649@real.realitydiluted.com> (sjhill@realitydiluted.com's message of "Fri\, 27 Jun 2008 07\:46\:53 -0500") References: <20080626065112.3F4CB3C289@busybox.net> <877iccn0ml.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <18151015.post@talk.nabble.com> <87y74ri68u.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20080627120011.GD32468@mx.loc> <20080627124653.GA31649@real.realitydiluted.com> Message-ID: <87myl7dl9w.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "sjhill" == sjhill writes: [resent with stripped to: to please mailman ] Hi, >> > Daniel> I use buildroot actively in my company and have kept up to >> > Daniel> date pretty well. However we are still using busybox 1.2.2.1 >> >> And what's the reason for you doing this? Do you like huge .bss and just >> don't want to benefit from the improvements that went into busybox >> during the last years? >> sjhill> Because some applets work in 1.2.2.1 that don't in newer sjhill> versions, like telnetd for example. Ohh, what's the problem? I don't use it myself, but openwrt afaik uses it on 1.8.x >> If there are regressions (something worked with 1.2.2.1 but fails with >> 1.11.0) no matter if they are behavioural or size-regressions, then you >> would be better off to report those to the busybox list. >> sjhill> Some of us live in the real world where once we ship a sjhill> product and start providing updates, it becomes cost sjhill> prohibitive to requalify all the software on a platform to sjhill> make sure everything still plays together. So I guess you freeze your buildroot snapshot as well? A missing 1.2.2.1 should only be a problem for people starting new development and wanting to use 1.2.2.1 (which they shouldn't) - right? >> >So you are still doing active development (E.G. buildroot stuff) on a >> >project where you cannot change the busybox version? >> > >> > Daniel> So I vote for not removing just deprecating :-) >> > >> >Ok, anyone still using 1.6 .. 1.8? >> sjhill> I vote for deprecating. Ok, noted. But this is bigger than just busybox ofcause - It also goes for all other packages. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard