On Monday, November 19, 2018, Ron Yorston <r...@pobox.com> wrote: > Kang-Che Sung wrote: >>Script stripping should be optional, for at least two reasons: >>1. It's beyond the scope of the script embedding feature, and it would better >>be implemented and maintained as a separate tool. > > I don't think it's out of scope. If you're handing your scripts over > to the tender mercies of the BusyBox build process you should expect > stuff to happen to them. > > Letting authors indulge their literary aspirations without bloating the > binary seems a nice feature to have. > >>2. Vendor may sign the scripts or publish their hashes or do something with >>them so that every bit of the script must remain intact. > > I suspect that most authors won't care. Those who do need their scripts > to be untouched should just ensure the first line doesn't match either > of the regular expressions. The old csh hack of putting ': /bin/sh' > on the first line would do, for example. And has a nice retro feel. >
Dammit. Why should I workaround my script just for an ugly "feature" you employ if I were building it? This isn't funny. Just take it off. Or make it _optional_.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox