[yocto] Removing busybox

[Philip Balister]

On 02/27/2019 05:24 PM, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> Le 27.02.19 à 22:40, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:09:02PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 09:06:38PM +0100, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> So as expected systemd is there and busybox is not. But there is a lot of
>>>> useful commands missing on the resulting QEMU image:
>>>>
>>>> root at qemux86:~# ps
>>>> ~sh: ps: command not found
>>>> root at qemux86:~# w
>>>> ~sh: w: command not found
>>>> root at qemux86:~# find
>>>> ~sh: find: command not found
>>>> root at qemux86:~# grep
>>>> ~sh: grep: command not found
>>>> root at qemux86:~# ip addr
>>>> ~sh: ip: command not found
>>>>
>>>> I expected that all the limited busybox commands would be replaced by
>>>> the full
>>>> featured commands. How to fix that ?
>>> Correct, you're missing a lot of stuff.  Somewhere on my (and other
>>> folks too) TODO list is a packagegroup that includes procps and psmisc
>>> and grep and tar and various network packages and less and more and...
>> "all the limited busybox commands would be replaced" would be a huge 
>> list from dc through gawk, minicom and wget to vim.
>>
>> And would vim-tiny qualify as "the full featured command" of busybox vi,
>> or should this include vim with full features?
>>
>> The nice thing about busybox is that it is so small,
>> in many cases one full featured command alone
>> is bigger than busybox.
>>
>> It is not obvious to me what usecases people have in mind for
>> getting rid of busybox, and whether everyone is aware that
>> something like "all busybox commands replaced" is *very*
>> expensive regarding filesystem size.
> 
> The project I work for need nodejs and chromium (and a >100MB database
> on some nodes), so space is not an issue. I need to deliver an useful
> distribution with usual commands, tools and a working console + keyboard
> for my locale. If  Poky is only maintained to be tested with sysvinit +
> busybox and US locale, then I wonder if it's the appropriate choice for
> that project. There nothing wrong in providing a sysvinit + busybox
> based small distribution, this is simply not the best fit for that project.

I have exactly the same needs. Customers with large sd card root for
filesystems want to see desktop commands, not the simpler busybox
commands. We should support both systems.

Philip

> 
> Jean-Christian
> 
>>
>>> Tom
>> cu
>> Adrian
>>
>