Patchwork [1/1] busybox: Include setsid and cttyhack in defconfig

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Darren Hart
Date June 15, 2012, 10:40 p.m.
Message ID <5f472764f7cea2d386b7ee572870fc03769868fc.1339799869.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/29985/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Darren Hart - June 15, 2012, 10:40 p.m.
When building very small systems, it can be useful to spawn a shell
from a simple init script, rather than a full System V Init
process. This requires the shell be the session leader and be able
to open the controlling terminal if it is to have job control.

Enable CONFIG_CTTYHACK and CONFIG_SETSID to enable this. The resulting
busybox binary does not change in size (I checked several times!).

Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig |    4 ++--
 meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb        |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Darren Hart - June 15, 2012, 10:56 p.m.
On 06/15/2012 03:40 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> When building very small systems, it can be useful to spawn a shell
> from a simple init script, rather than a full System V Init
> process. This requires the shell be the session leader and be able
> to open the controlling terminal if it is to have job control.
> 
> Enable CONFIG_CTTYHACK and CONFIG_SETSID to enable this. The resulting
> busybox binary does not change in size (I checked several times!).

Aha, OK, I'm hitting the menuconfig/sstate bug. By bumping the PR I was
able to get real numbers.

-rwxr-xr-x 1 dvhart dvhart 561828 2012-06-15 15:52 /home/dvhart/busybox-r8-sci
-rwxr-xr-x 1 dvhart dvhart 559268 2012-06-15 15:54 /home/dvhart/busybox-r9-i

So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.

The patch comment in the branch has been updated accordingly.

--
Darren

> 
> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig |    4 ++--
>  meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb        |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig
> index 372d7b5..0a5d5c9 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig
> @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ CONFIG_MICROCOM=y
>  # CONFIG_RFKILL is not set
>  # CONFIG_RUNLEVEL is not set
>  # CONFIG_RX is not set
> -# CONFIG_SETSID is not set
> +CONFIG_SETSID=y
>  CONFIG_STRINGS=y
>  # CONFIG_TASKSET is not set
>  # CONFIG_FEATURE_TASKSET_FANCY is not set
> @@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ CONFIG_ASH_BUILTIN_TEST=y
>  CONFIG_ASH_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
>  # CONFIG_ASH_RANDOM_SUPPORT is not set
>  CONFIG_ASH_EXPAND_PRMT=y
> -# CONFIG_CTTYHACK is not set
> +CONFIG_CTTYHACK=y
>  # CONFIG_HUSH is not set
>  # CONFIG_HUSH_BASH_COMPAT is not set
>  # CONFIG_HUSH_BRACE_EXPANSION is not set
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb
> index 0717075..5b3f356 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>  require busybox.inc
> -PR = "r6"
> +PR = "r7"
>  
>  SRC_URI = "http://www.busybox.net/downloads/busybox-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=tarball \
>             file://B921600.patch \
>
Phil Blundell - June 16, 2012, 4:18 p.m.
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.

Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.

So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
get a smaller binary that way as well.

p.
Darren Hart - June 16, 2012, 4:38 p.m.
On 06/16/2012 09:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.
> 
> Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
> configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
> every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
> bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
> quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.
> 
> So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
> busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
> other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
> the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
> get a smaller binary that way as well.

You are correct that poky-tiny would benefit from a smaller config. My
original intent was to update the busybox recipe to use the new
merge-config.sh that we pushed to the upstream Linux kernel (which
should work with busybox as it uses the same config mechanism). This
would allow us to maintain a base busybox config with a several config
fragments that can be easily added via DISTRO_FEATURES rather than the
complicated hack that is in busybox now for handling DISTRO_FEATURES. I
prefer this approach as it reduces (if not eliminates) the need for the
proliferation of busybox.bbappend files.

However, this is a larger project and my immediate goal is to get
poky-tiny into better shape in terms of the initial experience. This is
why I originally implemented it as a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE as that would
migrate naturally to the config fragment approach. You and others
objected to that approach, and I do understand not wanting to complicate
the DISTRO_FEATURE logic further.

With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
features are useful beyond poky-tiny.
Khem Raj - June 16, 2012, 5:47 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/16/2012 09:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.
>>
>> Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
>> configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
>> every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
>> bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
>> quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.
>>
>> So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
>> busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
>> other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
>> the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
>> get a smaller binary that way as well.

in retrospect I agree with Phil on gradual bloat. busybox and other
kconfig based
packages will always have fine tunings that we can never say one size
fits all unless
you enable everything and I think the purpose of using kconfig in
those packages is to provide this fine level of configuration

>
> You are correct that poky-tiny would benefit from a smaller config. My
> original intent was to update the busybox recipe to use the new
> merge-config.sh that we pushed to the upstream Linux kernel (which
> should work with busybox as it uses the same config mechanism). This
> would allow us to maintain a base busybox config with a several config
> fragments that can be easily added via DISTRO_FEATURES rather than the
> complicated hack that is in busybox now for handling DISTRO_FEATURES. I
> prefer this approach as it reduces (if not eliminates) the need for the
> proliferation of busybox.bbappend files.
>

. using merge-config.sh will probably make things better but until
then I don't think its a bad thing to have bbappends in current
scenario

> However, this is a larger project and my immediate goal is to get
> poky-tiny into better shape in terms of the initial experience. This is
> why I originally implemented it as a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE as that would
> migrate naturally to the config fragment approach. You and others
> objected to that approach, and I do understand not wanting to complicate
> the DISTRO_FEATURE logic further.
>
> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.

I think best approach here is to have the defconfig of own in
poky-tiny layer. It will
be a contained change.
Darren Hart - June 16, 2012, 9:47 p.m.
On 06/16/2012 10:47 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/16/2012 09:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.
>>>
>>> Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
>>> configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
>>> every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
>>> bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
>>> quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.
>>>
>>> So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
>>> busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
>>> other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
>>> the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
>>> get a smaller binary that way as well.
> 
> in retrospect I agree with Phil on gradual bloat. busybox and other
> kconfig based
> packages will always have fine tunings that we can never say one size
> fits all unless
> you enable everything and I think the purpose of using kconfig in
> those packages is to provide this fine level of configuration
> 
>>
>> You are correct that poky-tiny would benefit from a smaller config. My
>> original intent was to update the busybox recipe to use the new
>> merge-config.sh that we pushed to the upstream Linux kernel (which
>> should work with busybox as it uses the same config mechanism). This
>> would allow us to maintain a base busybox config with a several config
>> fragments that can be easily added via DISTRO_FEATURES rather than the
>> complicated hack that is in busybox now for handling DISTRO_FEATURES. I
>> prefer this approach as it reduces (if not eliminates) the need for the
>> proliferation of busybox.bbappend files.
>>
> 
> . using merge-config.sh will probably make things better but until
> then I don't think its a bad thing to have bbappends in current
> scenario
> 
>> However, this is a larger project and my immediate goal is to get
>> poky-tiny into better shape in terms of the initial experience. This is
>> why I originally implemented it as a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE as that would
>> migrate naturally to the config fragment approach. You and others
>> objected to that approach, and I do understand not wanting to complicate
>> the DISTRO_FEATURE logic further.
>>
>> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
>> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
>> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
>> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.
> 
> I think best approach here is to have the defconfig of own in
> poky-tiny layer. It will
> be a contained change.

Note that poky-tiny is not currently in its own layer, but is included
in the meta-intel layer. I will look into ways to accomplish this
without adding to the core busybox config and not having to break out
poky-tiny into its own layer.

I appreciate the careful thought and consideration.

Thanks,
Koen Kooi - June 17, 2012, 2:41 a.m.
Op 16 jun. 2012, om 16:47 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:

> 
> 
> On 06/16/2012 10:47 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 06/16/2012 09:18 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:56 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> So the delta for including SETSID and CTTYHACK is 2560 bytes.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I am still not in favour of adding this to the default
>>>> configuration.  I appreciate that it's "only" 2.5k in this case, but
>>>> every time we make a change like this the binary gets a little bit
>>>> bigger and, over time, it does add up.  This sort of gradual bloat is
>>>> quite insidious and difficult to combat after the fact.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I continue to think that poky-tiny should just provide its own
>>>> busybox configuration and turn on the options that it wants just like
>>>> other DISTROs do.  No doubt there are some things currently included in
>>>> the oe-core defaults that poky-tiny doesn't need, so you would probably
>>>> get a smaller binary that way as well.
>> 
>> in retrospect I agree with Phil on gradual bloat. busybox and other
>> kconfig based
>> packages will always have fine tunings that we can never say one size
>> fits all unless
>> you enable everything and I think the purpose of using kconfig in
>> those packages is to provide this fine level of configuration
>> 
>>> 
>>> You are correct that poky-tiny would benefit from a smaller config. My
>>> original intent was to update the busybox recipe to use the new
>>> merge-config.sh that we pushed to the upstream Linux kernel (which
>>> should work with busybox as it uses the same config mechanism). This
>>> would allow us to maintain a base busybox config with a several config
>>> fragments that can be easily added via DISTRO_FEATURES rather than the
>>> complicated hack that is in busybox now for handling DISTRO_FEATURES. I
>>> prefer this approach as it reduces (if not eliminates) the need for the
>>> proliferation of busybox.bbappend files.
>>> 
>> 
>> . using merge-config.sh will probably make things better but until
>> then I don't think its a bad thing to have bbappends in current
>> scenario
>> 
>>> However, this is a larger project and my immediate goal is to get
>>> poky-tiny into better shape in terms of the initial experience. This is
>>> why I originally implemented it as a "tiny" DISTRO_FEATURE as that would
>>> migrate naturally to the config fragment approach. You and others
>>> objected to that approach, and I do understand not wanting to complicate
>>> the DISTRO_FEATURE logic further.
>>> 
>>> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
>>> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
>>> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
>>> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.
>> 
>> I think best approach here is to have the defconfig of own in
>> poky-tiny layer. It will
>> be a contained change.
> 
> Note that poky-tiny is not currently in its own layer, but is included
> in the meta-intel layer. I will look into ways to accomplish this
> without adding to the core busybox config and not having to break out
> poky-tiny into its own layer.

What is it with you intel folks (bless their hearts) wanting to combine BSP and distro? baerion, guacamayo and poky-tiny all force you to include the distro stuff if you want any of their recipes. I don't want to have all the hostnames on my boards changed to 'baerion' when I build mediatomb!
Paul Eggleton - June 17, 2012, 9:14 p.m.
On Saturday 16 June 2012 21:41:53 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 16 jun. 2012, om 16:47 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
> > Note that poky-tiny is not currently in its own layer, but is included
> > in the meta-intel layer. I will look into ways to accomplish this
> > without adding to the core busybox config and not having to break out
> > poky-tiny into its own layer.
> 
> What is it with you intel folks (bless their hearts) wanting to combine BSP
> and distro? baerion, guacamayo and poky-tiny all force you to include the
> distro stuff if you want any of their recipes. I don't want to have all the
> hostnames on my boards changed to 'baerion' when I build mediatomb!

All of these efforts are separate and put together by different people.

Firstly, I think when Darren said "meta-intel" he meant to say "meta-yocto" 
which is where the poky-tiny distro config can be found (and indeed that is 
where I would expect to find it).

Secondly, you already asked me about Baryon and I already agreed that it 
needed reorganising and promised to do it; but I haven't had time yet. I'd 
also point out in any case that it does not contain any BSP and the mere 
presence of the baryon distro config does not force you to use it as you 
suggest.

Paul
Khem Raj - June 17, 2012, 9:55 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6/17/2012 2:14 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Firstly, I think when Darren said "meta-intel" he meant to say
> "meta-yocto" which is where the poky-tiny distro config can be
> found (and indeed that is where I would expect to find it).

meta-yocto is then a distro layer as well as machine layer since the
reference yocto hardware are defined in same layer. and since
poky/poky-tiny are the distro policies for yocto I agree it makes
sense to have the busybox change in meta-yocto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/eUmgACgkQuwUzVZGdMxTbqgCdFpLtxa/Oj5fetSrLF6o50cQD
AgUAn1ljKN78+6+6H0fAz5+9iN0M5JVx
=AKm1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Koen Kooi - June 18, 2012, 5 a.m.
Op 17 jun. 2012 om 23:14 heeft Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> het volgende geschreven:

> On Saturday 16 June 2012 21:41:53 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 16 jun. 2012, om 16:47 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>>> Note that poky-tiny is not currently in its own layer, but is included
>>> in the meta-intel layer. I will look into ways to accomplish this
>>> without adding to the core busybox config and not having to break out
>>> poky-tiny into its own layer.
>> 
>> What is it with you intel folks (bless their hearts) wanting to combine BSP
>> and distro? baerion, guacamayo and poky-tiny all force you to include the
>> distro stuff if you want any of their recipes. I don't want to have all the
>> hostnames on my boards changed to 'baerion' when I build mediatomb!
> 
> All of these efforts are separate and put together by different people.
> 
> Firstly, I think when Darren said "meta-intel" he meant to say "meta-yocto" 
> which is where the poky-tiny distro config can be found (and indeed that is 
> where I would expect to find it).
> 
> Secondly, you already asked me about Baryon and I already agreed that it 
> needed reorganising and promised to do it; but I haven't had time yet. I'd 
> also point out in any case that it does not contain any BSP and the mere 
> presence of the baryon distro config does not force you to use it as you 
> suggest.

it does force the distro bbappends onto everyone, messing up /etc/hostname



> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> 
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Paul Eggleton - June 18, 2012, 7:58 a.m.
On Monday 18 June 2012 07:00:19 Koen Kooi wrote:
> it does force the distro bbappends onto everyone, messing up /etc/hostname

So it did. Now it's fixed.

Paul
Koen Kooi - June 18, 2012, 9:26 a.m.
Op 18 jun. 2012, om 09:58 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:

> On Monday 18 June 2012 07:00:19 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> it does force the distro bbappends onto everyone, messing up /etc/hostname
> 
> So it did. Now it's fixed.

Thanks! I'll add it to the angstrom layer stack later this week.
Paul Eggleton - June 18, 2012, 10:43 a.m.
On Monday 18 June 2012 11:26:22 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 18 jun. 2012, om 09:58 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> > On Monday 18 June 2012 07:00:19 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> it does force the distro bbappends onto everyone, messing up
> >> /etc/hostname
> > 
> > So it did. Now it's fixed.
> 
> Thanks! I'll add it to the angstrom layer stack later this week.

Well, you could do that, but I have to say I never intended meta-baryon to be 
the proper home for the additional recipes that it contains, and indeed it 
duplicates some already in meta-oe (so it did not have to pull in meta-oe).

If you wanted to add the new recipes it contains somewhere else then I'd be 
more than happy for that to happen, or I'll get round to doing it some time in 
the near future. FYI what's there that's not currently in any other layer 
(excluding ffmpeg):

* faac [added for ffmpeg]
* ffmpeg [I'm guessing you won't want this, but mediatomb/ffmpegthumbnailer will 
need fixing up to use libav instead if you don't.]
* ffmpegthumbnailer
* libgsm [added for ffmpeg but probably could have been disabled instead]
* mediatomb
* proftpd
* schroedinger [added for ffmpeg]
* webmin [might need some tweaking]
* webmin-notice [might not be particularly interesting]

The libav adaptation is one of the reasons I haven't done this yet as it looks 
like it might not be a 5 minute job.

Cheers,
Paul
Phil Blundell - June 18, 2012, 11:35 a.m.
On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 09:38 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.

Well, obviously it isn't my place to accept or reject your patch; one of
the oe-core maintainers would have to make that decision.  But,
personally, given a choice between those two options I would prefer the
latter.

However, I do still think that the best interim approach is just to
provide a suitable, complete defconfig file in whatever layer contains
poky-tiny.  This doesn't need to involve splitting poky-tiny into its
own layer, doesn't require any extra tooling in oe-core in the short
term, and doesn't necessarily even need to involve a .bbappend (although
it would probably be easiest if it did).

p.
Darren Hart - June 18, 2012, 2:28 p.m.
On 06/18/2012 04:35 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 09:38 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> With the above goal in mind, can you accept either of my proposed
>> patches as an interim solution? Either as an added tiny DISTRO_FEATURE
>> or as a simple addition to the defconfig? I do believe these two
>> features are useful beyond poky-tiny.
> 
> Well, obviously it isn't my place to accept or reject your patch; one of
> the oe-core maintainers would have to make that decision.  But,
> personally, given a choice between those two options I would prefer the
> latter.
> 
> However, I do still think that the best interim approach is just to
> provide a suitable, complete defconfig file in whatever layer contains
> poky-tiny.  This doesn't need to involve splitting poky-tiny into its
> own layer, doesn't require any extra tooling in oe-core in the short
> term, and doesn't necessarily even need to involve a .bbappend (although
> it would probably be easiest if it did).

I'm going to look into this approach today.

Patch

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig
index 372d7b5..0a5d5c9 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox-1.19.4/defconfig
@@ -700,7 +700,7 @@  CONFIG_MICROCOM=y
 # CONFIG_RFKILL is not set
 # CONFIG_RUNLEVEL is not set
 # CONFIG_RX is not set
-# CONFIG_SETSID is not set
+CONFIG_SETSID=y
 CONFIG_STRINGS=y
 # CONFIG_TASKSET is not set
 # CONFIG_FEATURE_TASKSET_FANCY is not set
@@ -960,7 +960,7 @@  CONFIG_ASH_BUILTIN_TEST=y
 CONFIG_ASH_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
 # CONFIG_ASH_RANDOM_SUPPORT is not set
 CONFIG_ASH_EXPAND_PRMT=y
-# CONFIG_CTTYHACK is not set
+CONFIG_CTTYHACK=y
 # CONFIG_HUSH is not set
 # CONFIG_HUSH_BASH_COMPAT is not set
 # CONFIG_HUSH_BRACE_EXPANSION is not set
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb
index 0717075..5b3f356 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.19.4.bb
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ 
 require busybox.inc
-PR = "r6"
+PR = "r7"
 
 SRC_URI = "http://www.busybox.net/downloads/busybox-${PV}.tar.bz2;name=tarball \
            file://B921600.patch \