On 08/18/2013 07:56:29 PM, Strake wrote:
On 18/08/2013, Isaac <ibid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 09:38:42AM -0500, Strake wrote:
>> From 999f64b2615cd53504e4ad312f7a72eb2170da5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
>> From: Strake <strake...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 09:29:51 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] add u?mount
>>
>
> Good start, but I'd suggest looking at Rob's mount.c
Damn it; if I had known I wouldn't have written another. I just
checked the source tree.
It's one I also wrote the busybox version of, spent months getting it
right last time, and thus have a fairly elaborate set of criteria for
what counts as "correct".
Last time I sat down to bang on this, the sequencing required doing
losetup so I could do umount so I could do mount. The losetup saga is
here, and basically ate christmas break last year:
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#28-10-2012
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#03-12-2012
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#24-12-2012
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#25-12-2012
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#26-12-2012
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#27-12-2012
http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#30-12-2012
The reason I haven't finished these is people keep sending me new
commands, and getting those merged and cleaned up is higher priority
for me than writing new code I already know how to do. (I.E. constant
stream of interrupts starving base tasks for scheduler time.)
The real priority ones are where somebody sends me a command
implementation with a design I don't want to use. Last month I got a
ping that shelled out to a separate ping6 binary for ipv6 support: this
means I need to write "ping". The "install" command recently posted is
a wrapper around cp; it doesn't call cp_main() but instead does an exec
with $PATH search. Since we've _got_ cp, it seems like we should be
able to just use it without needing to exec ourselves...
But saying "no" to a working command is... unpleasant. So I need to go
write what I think the command should look like and get that in so they
can use it...
Working on it. Sorry it's so slow, but I want to get it _right_ or
there's no point in doing yet another one when there's a dozen
implementations already out there in gnu and busybox and the various
BSDs and sbase and sash and klibc and the ancient AT&T stuff SCO open
sourced before going crazy. I want this version to be _better_ than
those...
Rob
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
