Re: RFC: ITP(?) busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate packages

[zw@zhaoway.com]

I [zhaoway] wrote:
> Please give me your advice if packaging busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate
> packages is a good idea or not. Thanks!
> 
> This comes to my mind because:

[snip]

> 2) Packages like mkinitrd-cd depends on boot-floppies solely for these two
> utilities.

Erik wrote:
> The main BusyBox source tree currently lives outside of the boot floppies.
> BusyBox has been packaged and is ready for inclusion into woody; however, woody
> is not yet ready for it.  Woody needs a new Debian archive section for
> "installer" packages which do not need to be fully compilant with policy.  The
> busybox package was rejected when I uploaded it since it does not comply with
> policy (it makes little sense to include docs and manapages for a package that
> is only used for the installer).
> 
> Joey Hess is trying to get the new "installer" section into the archive, at
> which time a number of new installer packages will be uploaded...

Oh, yeah! ;-) Is there any more detail for that?

But in some (rare?) cases other packages besides installer may also need the
usibility of busybox as well?

I.e. Debian standard installer, other installer builder for their special
interests, rescue media maker, et al. i.e. in many cases busybox do as like
a library package, am I right?

Since I don't know Joey Hess' effort's detail now, I am not sure if will be
capable of this? And anyway, as pointed out, busybox is more or less like a
library package in some cases in a general system, so what if we package it
in that way to comply to policy? (I will read in details of the D.P, so if
something stupid here, please tell me! ;-) I'm right now in NM q. ;-)


zhaoway