Why talk about rejected work, or mistakes ? Alternatives are a good thing. Also, as useful and widespread as Busybox is, it doesn't have to be the be-all, end-all of embedded software; it doesn't have to package *everything* a user might need.
As I see it, Busybox exists to provide low-resource-consuming (be it disk space or RAM) implementations of existing utilities - especially GNU utilities, that are traditionally feature-oriented instead of embedded-friendly. But if some software is already small and easy to use in restricted environments, why would Busybox have to integrate it ? If the original lzip utility doesn't require a nuclear plant to run, then making a Busybox version seems redundant - embedded users who want to use lzip can simply install the original ! Getting *everything* into Busybox - one binary to rule them all - smells a bit too much like systemd. Do we want to go there ? Instead, Denys, or whoever maintains the busybox.net website, there is a tinyutils.html page that is way out of date, and that seems precisely made to list utilities that might benefit embedded users, *additionally* to Busybox. I would very much like my own execline (in the "scripting language" section) and s6, and even s6-linux-utils (mainly for the s6-devd netlink utility), to appear there. If the original lzip qualifies, it could certainly be listed there too, as well as other utilities I'm not thinking of atm. Less work for busybox, same benefits for the community. If I can help concretely, I will be happy to. -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
