Re: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod
06.01.2024 11:40, Helmut Grohne:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 09:01:12AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
I also recommend to establish QA for all udebs to automatically detect,
report and address such conflicts as they evidently cause undefined
behaviour otherwise. That can be as simple as collecting file lists of
all udebs and comparing them.
This seems like a more generic problem. I downloaded all amd64 udebs and
the following files (normalized to account for aliasing) pose a
conflict:
From this list, only a few utilities are from busybox, namely wget and module
utilities (depmod/insmod/lsmod/modinfo/modprobe/rmmod).
My initial plan - with regular busybox package and with busybox udeb - is to
provide most things in busybox, so that other packages don't need to ship
udeb packages and the whole thing (be it d-i or initrd) is small.
Yes, some utils in busybox aren't as good as regular implementations. For
example, I just found out busybox's xz does not perform compression, only
decompression (-d option is mandatory). Or #1003757 - missing functionality
in busybox ip. Still, overall, it is enough for most things. BTW, it looks
like with compressed kernel modules, busybox m-i-t needs some (albiet minor)
tweaks (it works but kernel produces warnings when busybox tries to load a
module).
Unfortunately this didn't work out for one reason or another. One of the
reasons is perhaps #921556, where original util does more than needed but
busybox didn't implement the unnecessary functionality.
This needs to be thought about at a more general level. Including initrd
stuff (if we still need it, instead of relying on mkosi-initrd). I use
my own initrd for a good reason, and this one does not include 2 or even
3 libc as debian does..
/mjt
Reply to: