[PATCH] Tweaks to build process for embedded scripts

[Kang-Che Sung]

On Monday, November 19, 2018, Ron Yorston <rmy at 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_.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20181119/780a877d/attachment.html>