Should BusyBox and uClibc also make a "flag version" like Embedded Linux?

Denys Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail.com
Sun Nov 14 03:34:18 UTC 2010


On Thursday 11 November 2010 23:34, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Meanwhile, it seems from the discussion that a few BusyBox/uClibc
> developers are mildly in favor of this idea,

Those developers who aren't users don't know what is going on
in the trenches.

(Quite often, then don't realize this, and we end up with Drepper
(or NTP developers) who are "always right"... but I digress)

Developers need to listen to active users of their project.

> a few are very much against 
> it, but most who commented seem to be ambivalent.  Thus, it appears
> there's no clear consensus.

Rob made an excellent point about uclibc not needing flag versions
since its releases are so far apart they are already "flag".

As for busybox, its development isn't uclibc-slow, but so far
there is no evidence users are suffering from too much churn either.


> (I am not, BTW, demanding a consensus be 
> reached, but instead I merely offer my efforts to help get BusyBox
> and/or uClibc on the aforementioned bandwagon should there be a
> consensus on the issue.)
> 
> I will reiterate only one part of my argument in favor of the idea
> (which is likely the most important part): I think the primary value to
> BusyBox and/or uClibc of getting involved with this "flag version" plan
> is a marketing/advocacy advantage for BusyBox and/or uClibc toward
> further adoption in some segments of the embedded Linux development
> space.

If "flag" version of kernel wants to also carry an "endorsed"
busybox with it, this might be useful - users will tend
to upgrade both at the same time, finally replacing
their ancient busybox-0.60.

Not sure kernel people would bother to do that, though.


> I admit that I have no hard data to present that proves a
> marketing/advocacy benefit here.  My opinion on the subject is primarily
> just a feeling, informed by my ten years of experience of regularly
> observing the parts of the embedded Linux market with which I regularly
> come in contact (primarily through GPL enforcement efforts).
> 
> Conservancy's job as BusyBox's and uClibc's non-profit home is (in part)
> to help the promote the projects (but always without interfering with
> the artistic and technological decisions of the project).  When I saw
> Tim's email on LWN, I thought this was a good place to make a
> recommendation to the projects' developers in this regard.  Thanks to
> all of you for your time in considering my recommendation, and I do
> apologize if this discussion turned out to actually be a pointless rat
> hole.

I don't think it is useless. For me it was useful - I heard a few
stories from the trenches.

-- 
vda


More information about the uClibc mailing list