[OE-core] [PATCH] busybox: update to 1.29.1

[Andrej Valek]

I have just taken the changes, what have Armin done
(http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2018-June/151796.html).
I thought, that they are already discussed.
Anyway, I can split them back ;).

Cheers,

Andrej

On 07/19/18 11:00, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 10:53 +0200, Andrej Valek wrote:
>>  - refresh busybox-udhcpc-no_deconfig.patch
>>  - remove obsolete patches which are included in this update
>>  - update defconfig
>>   - squashed .cfg(s) into defconfig
> 
> I'm a little concerned about the .cfg changes.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrej Valek <andrej.valek at siemens.com>
>> ---
>>  ...inittab_1.27.2.bb => busybox-inittab_1.29.1.bb} |   0
>>  .../busybox/busybox/CVE-2011-5325.patch            | 481 ---------
>> ------------
>>  .../busybox/busybox/CVE-2017-15873.patch           |  95 ----
>>  .../busybox/busybox/busybox-CVE-2017-16544.patch   |  43 --
>>  .../busybox/busybox-fix-lzma-segfaults.patch       | 106 -----
>>  .../busybox/busybox-udhcpc-no_deconfig.patch       |  50 ++-
>>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/defconfig        | 292 +++++++--
>> ----
>>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/getopts.cfg      |   3 -
>>  .../busybox/busybox/login-utilities.cfg            |  13 -
>>  .../busybox/busybox/mount-via-label.cfg            |   9 -
>>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/resize.cfg       |   2 -
>>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/sha1sum.cfg      |   1 -
>>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/sha256sum.cfg    |   1 -
>>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox/syslog.cfg       |  11 -
>>  .../busybox/busybox/umount-ignore-c.patch          |  40 --
>>  .../{busybox_1.27.2.bb => busybox_1.29.1.bb}       |  16 +-
> 
> Some of the .cfg merges are probably ok but I would like the see syslog
> and login-utilities maintained as they allow people to disable groups
> of config which can be interchanged with other recipes for varying
> setups, just by changing SRC_URI. I'd imagine most of these were added
> for some reason but those two stand out in particular. The mount-via-
> label may have been for size concerns?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>