[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

Any comments?


 Eric Delaunay                 | S'il n'y a pas de solution, c'est qu'il n'y
 delaunay@lix.polytechnique.fr | a pas de problème.   Devise Shadok.

Reply to: