Re: [gentoo-dev] Network configuration and bash

[Daniel Robbins]

On 2/8/07, Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote:
> As somebody that's had to hand write many of those kinds of scripts. A
> single rcS is not very ideal. Our init scripts are in fact mostly usable
> by busybox. Granted there are a few special special cases, but then Roy
> is offering to update those for free. One of the larger problems really
> boils down to many packages provide default init.d scripts and these
> expect the existing baselayout only. That will be a bigger feat to deal
> with later on down the road.

Developers will then need to test their init.d scripts to ensure that
they are compatible with busybox. This is asking a lot of work of
people just so you can use Gentoo's initscripts for something they are
not really ideal for. Any time a script is updated a new rev of a
package is required, and this does impact users and will cause
packages to be rebuilt when a user does "emerge -u". So I think this
should be weighed against the potential benefits of baselayout +
busybox.

If you are targetting something smaller than 32MB, then maybe busybox
is appropriate. But you are trying to go really small, then you
probably don't want all the extra junk in our initscripts. And if you
are _not_ trying to go really small, then put bash in your filesystem,
not busybox, and the initscripts will work. If bash isn't fast enough
from a boot time perspective, then the gentoo initscripts certainly
aren't going to be fast enough either.

In other words:

busybox + single rcS file = fastest and simplest, smallest, best for
very small filesystems, not as flexible

bash + gentoo baselayout = most flexible, biggest, slower, best for
feature-rich systems

busybox + gentoo baselayout = ?

I think that in 99 out of 100 cases, if you have room for baselayout,
then you probably have room for bash too. And in 99 out of 100 cases,
if you can deal with the load time of baselayout, then you can deal
with the overhead that might be incurred from having bash.

I'm just pointing out that it's not an obviously good combination. In
the grand scheme of things, maybe it's not a great use of developer
resources. Or, maybe I'm wrong and it is a great idea.

Personally I think that "baselayout + busybox" may be cool, but adding
an aftermarket sunroof to your car can be cool too. But that doesn't
mean it's worth the effort :)

Really, it's hard for me to imagine many scenarios where you really
need the flexibility of baselayout but can't squeeze in bash. And I
have a pretty good imagination.

-Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list