[BusyBox] Busybox 1.1.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 30 June 2005 09:45 pm, Rob Landley wrote:
> 1) I'd like to get a busybox 1.0.1 release out in the next month or two.
> 2) I'd like to fork a busybox 1.1 tree and start attacking the TODO list.
>
> Opening busybox 1.1 gives us the ability to say "no" to new features in
> busybox 1.0 without actually rejecting them.  That can become a
> bug-fixes-only branch, with new features added to 1.1.  We need more
> regular releases of 1.0.  It's been over seven months since 1.0.
>
> Furthermore, I'd suggest moving some of the newer features (such as ipcs
> and mke2fs) to the 1.1 tree so they get a good shakedown and get their size
> reduced more before we send them out into the wild.  Adding lzma would
> definitely be 1.1 material.  (I'd also like to deprecate the devfs stuff;
> it's going away in the 2.6 kernel and anybody using 2.4 probably shouldn't
> be using the 1.1 branch.  But that's an argument for later.)

this sounds like a good plan (especially about ripping the entire e2fsprogs)

> As for goals for the 1.1 branch: work through the current TODO list, do a
> cleaning pass over whatever apps we manage to look at (I lost my rewrite of
> init but I can always do it again), and do a SuSv3 audit.  (Not necessarily
> become SuSv3 _compliant_, but we should at least know where we are relative
> to that.  Of course having an SuSv3 complaince config option would be
> nice.) Any big companies that wanted to sponsor this work would, of course,
> be welcome, but let's face it: how realistic is that?  (I intend to do it
> anyway, the question is how long it'll take.)

a doc like what we have with uclibc would be good where we detail the 
differences/gotchas/etc...
-mike