busybox current status

[Tito]

On Saturday 18 November 2006 18:17, Erik Hovland wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 05:04:04PM +0100, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > RFC for deprecation:
> > 
> > * e2fsprogs are not maintained and generally shouldn't be
> >   in bbox in my opinion. Also they are very large:
> >   text+data text+rodata    rwdata       bss filename
> >       79939       79779       160       504 e2fsprogs/e2fsck.o
> >       10261       10245        16      1092 e2fsprogs/mke2fs.o
> >        7319        7319         0       348 e2fsprogs/fsck.o
> >        6226        6210        16       142 e2fsprogs/tune2fs.o
> >   (full bbox is ~900k. e2fsprogs are ~10% of that)
> >   Maybe lsattr/chattr can stay...
> > * Are we sure our hdparm doesn't suffer from the
> >   bugs? lack of new features?
> >   text+data text+rodata    rwdata       bss filename
> >       21744       21744         0       852 miscutils/hdparm.o
> 
> I would agree with you hartily if you deprecated both of these items. In
> familiar we use the original implementations for our packaging and don't
> use the busybox version.

Hi, after a pc total damage now I'm back :-)
hdparm could be greatly reduced by creating a version without -iItT switches
and/or one that implements only the most used options:

 -c   get/set IDE 32-bit IO setting
 -d   get/set using_dma flag
 -m   get/set multiple sector count
 -u   get/set unmaskirq flag (0/1)

At least the most used by me.
Ideas?

Ciao,
Tito
> 
> > * telnetd probably needs the same love as httpd (-i,-f)
> 
> What about deprecating telnetd? I know, scandalous talk.
> 
> > * New applets: hose/faucet? ssh[d]? :)
> 
> I would leave this to dropbear. Matt does a pretty good job with that
> code.
> 
> E
>