[PATCH] make top.c even smaller #3

[Rob Landley]

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 10:34 am, Vladimir N. Oleynik wrote:
> Rob,
>
> > C) If "mainstream compatibility" really is a serious issue then I'll take
> > a look at rewriting top from scratch.  I'm pretty sure I can shrink it by
> > at least 10%.
>
> WOW! The Double Standart!
>
> "The reason that was generated by a sed invocation and not confdata.c is
> that we resync with the linux kernel's config infrastructure from time to
> time, and I'd like to keep the difference between our stuff and their stuff
> to a minimum."
>
> Rob Landley <rob at landley.net>  (c) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:19:50 -0500

In that case, yes.

We don't ship the configuration stuff, so it doesn't matter that it's as small 
as possible.  Vastly conflicting design goals are unlikely to become a 
problem in that case.

Did that help you understand what I meant?

>
> PS: Besides speaking, there is no necessity of serious synchronization
> confdata, it only an internal build problem vs standart utility applet.
>
> :(((

I specifically want to sync with the 2.6.15 linux-kernel configuration because 
I want to apply the miniconfig work I did to busybox, which is based on the 
allno.config upgrades to the linux kernel configurator.  They have a specific 
new feature I want to add to busybox.

If we had hand-tuned the kernel configurator for size and extensive use of the 
busybox shared library, then I wouldn't be interested in resyncing with this.  
But we haven't, and there's no point in us doing so because the configurator 
is not actually part of busybox, just part of our build system.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.