Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] Alpine features and the future

From: Cág <>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:17:34 +0100

William Pitcock wrote:

> In general our goal is to make it possible to have more choice, while
> retaining sensible lightweight defaults where it makes sense. It is
> not likely that we will change any default components, but instead
> make more components swappable (as you can already do with coreutils,
> shadow, etc.)

Having options is nice, while now there are 303 packages that depend on
BusyBox. Ideally there would be zero since people who would run
"apk -i del busybox" probably know what they are doing. It also would
be nice to have some kind of warning if they don't.

> We are quite happy with the way things are
> going, and how efficiently we can make changes in BusyBox when
> necessary. The only reason right now why we would move away from
> BusyBox is if that relationship with upstream were to change in a
> major way, but that seems unlikely.
My problem with BusyBox is UTF-8. Somewhere it works, somewhere it doesn't
and it's hard to keep an eye on all of the components since there is a
load of them. TODO for Unicode hasn't been updated for seven years now...

> The primary argument for switching from GNU software has to do with
> the licensing. We're not license purists. As long as the software
> meets our redistribution guidelines, the license does not matter so
> much. GPLv3 is obviously compliant with our guidelines.
Some consider GNU software bloat[0] and think that it sucks[1],
it pisses others off ("I'd like to interject for a moment...").

I personally don't care about licences (GPL is bureaucratic though).


Received on Thu Jun 22 2017 - 20:17:34 UTC