Re: BeastieBox, a (Net)BSD BusyBox-like

["matthew sporleder" <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:42 AM, iMil <imil%home.imil.net@localhost> wrote:
>
>> I think it's a great goal, but I'm not happy about seeing a lot of new
>> #ifdefs in the base system.  #ifdefs make code hard to read and hard to
>> test; they'll also make your code fragile, because someone working in
>> the main branch will add something but never test compilation, let
>> alone behavior, in the #ifdef'd section.
>
> agree. Now, the reason why I was thinking it this way was not to pollute the
> base system, but either "forking it". I'm really not a project-forking-fan,
> but I doubt there will be a "beastiebox" target on NetBSD's toplevel
> Makefile one day, and my guess was that it would be easier to import new
> features from the official base system this way.
>
>> I think it's worth some thought on how best to do this.
>
> I'd be pleased :)
>


Have you looked at the utilities for /rescue which have already been
scaled down and combined?