[BusyBox] Improving Our Development Process

[Vladimir N. Oleynik]

David Douthitt wrote:

> Except that EVERYTHING that the two binaries have in common
> (utility.c?) would be built twice, and I suspect that could be a good
> portion of the system.

usage.c, sh.c (STANDALONE), even cmdedit with completion :) (for
search applications).
Dependences appear in unexpected places, for example I use a code
"completion" from MC though in the given dispatch I give 
him separately.

> A library would eliminate this problem - utility.c would be in a
> library, and would be fixed once, and would be included in any
> binary only once.

You tried? The premise of many functions from this file in dynamic lib only
will increase size of the distribution-kit and will not give anything in
exchange, except for additional complexities.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "additional dependency" - doesn't
> that happen every time a new app is created?  An additional
> dependency in the Makefile doesn't sound like a big thing.

And to wait, when mantainer libbusyboxutils.a will make changes? 
10 you will think, before you will demand change at such...
 
> Reason I mentioned it is it would also be a prime candidate for a
> suid / non-suid split and a library to go with it.

WOW! Exaple please! :))
 


--w
vodz