Re: RFC: moving busybox into its own .deb
Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Sun Jan 16, 2000 at 11:38:03PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> > Actually, I was already using it in non-packaged format as the basis of
> > what I'm calling "Tiny Debian". It's a deb-based distro for resource
> > constrained PDAs and embedded systems. Having busybox separately packaged
> > will make it easier to manage the framework. I actually generate a
> > complete Debian-based image from any host Debian box for my Psion palmtop
> > (ARM7). The conflicts aren't a problem except when one decided to replace
> > busybox tar with GNU tar for enhanced functionality. For short term
> > usage it's not going to bother 99% of people, though.
> cool. I'll finish up the packaging today then.
Then reverting the order of conflicts could solve this problem. If gzip, for
example, conflicts & replaces busybox, I guess it could then be installed on
top of busybox, but busybox could not be installed on a production system
already running gzip & co packages.
Well I'm not sure at all it is the right way because I don't have real
experience with dpkg internals.
Moreover it might be difficult to force all maintainers of conflicting packages
to add such statements on their package control files.
Eric Delaunay | S'il n'y a pas de solution, c'est qu'il n'y
firstname.lastname@example.org | a pas de problème. Devise Shadok.