[yocto] Removing busybox
Adrian Bunk
bunk at stusta.de
Wed Feb 27 21:19:45 PST 2019
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:59:42PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 23:55, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > My current incomplete list is:
> > bind-utils \
> > bridge-utils \
> > coreutils \
> > dnsmasq \
> > e2fsprogs \
> > e2fsprogs-resize2fs \
> > e2fsprogs-tune2fs \
> > findutils \
> > gawk \
> > grep \
> > inetutils-ping \
> > inetutils-ping6 \
> > inetutils-traceroute \
> > iproute2 \
> > less \
> > net-tools \
> > parted \
> > pciutils \
> > procps \
> > sed \
> > util-linux \
> > vim \
> > which \
> >
> > And it's also incomplete as there's more stuff under inetutils I don't
> > need (but others may), and I set aside patch/diff/ed and some other
> > stuff I don't need. And since some of that stuff comes from
> > meta-openembedded, it's indeed really not clear how/where a packagegroup
> > would reside as we need things out of meta-networking.
>
> That's a good start. For a oe-core packagegroup
I do not think a core-only packagegroup makes sense when the goal is to
completely replace busybox (and not just most apps while keeping a few
busybox apps installed).
> I'd suggest dropping
> dnsmasq bridgeutils bindutils to keep it lean.
The stated usecases are not "lean" but "replace all busybox commands
with the full versions".
For that you need bind-utils (in oe-core) for DNS lookup.
>...
> Also swap vim for something in core obviously.
It is not obvious how to do that.
What other vi implementation is in core?
Is there even any good non-busybox non-GUI editor in core?
Replacing busybox vi with ed would be a bad fit for the
stated usecases.
There has to be some vi implementation installed,
and the "desktop command" implementation is vim.
> Ross
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
More information about the yocto
mailing list