udhcp missing prototypes

[David Daney]

Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 1:50 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
>>On Monday 17 April 2006 23:18, Rob Landley wrote:
>>
>>>I'm removing that entire subdirectory.
>>
>>here's a better idea, leave it alone
> 
> 
> I was doing so, until another project got nailed to the side of busybox.
> 
> 
>>we get it, you dont like udhcp
> 
> 
> I think udhcp is fine as a separate project.  But either it's a separate 
> project, or it's a part of busybox.  There is no middle ground.
> 
> 
>>let other people field the questions then, all you're doing is adding noise
>>at this point
> 
> 
> I am not cutting a release that has an external project glued to the busybox 
> svn repository.  Period.  Ever.  There will not _be_ another -devel release 
> before I remove that, and if absolutely necessary I will manually rm -rf that 
> directory from the copy I tar up.
> 
> I objected when the symlink was put in, apparently not strongly enough.  If 
> I'd had a little more warning, I would have cleaned up the udhcp code use 
> getopt_ulflags() and all the other libbb stuff, but right now I can't do so.  
> Not because it would break building it outside of the tree (which isn't my 
> problem), but because I'd have to rm -rf my svn repository and re-check it 
> out in order to have access to that directory at all again.
> 
> This has not been a high priority for me since the next release isn't slated 
> until June, and if necessary I can just delete the sucker.  (I'd rather not 
> do that though, since that would be a functional regression.)
> 
> But the current udhcp code was doomed from the moment you deleted busybox's 
> copy of it.  When you deleted busybox's copy, it ceased to be part of 
> busybox.  Splicing in an external tree is irrelevant: that doesn't ship.

Speaking as a user of busybox (although I have contributed in the past), 
I want/need udhcpc to be part of busybox.

I have not really been following the issue, so perhaps I misunderstand, 
but it sounds like Rob is suggesting that future versions of busybox may 
not have the option of configuring with udhcpc.  Is that correct?  If so 
I am not at all happy about it.  If not, I apologize for then noise.

David Daney