Re: [PROBLEM] in 2.2.15 busybox tar
Quoting Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>:
> Erik Andersen <andersen@xmission.com> writes:
>
> > This (and other problems) were what caused me to completely
> > rewrite BusyBox tar for the BusyBox 0.43 release. This rewrite
> > (along with many other bug fixes) is not in the boot floppies.
> > I stopped updating the boot floppies busybox tree some time ago
> > to avoid the potential instability caused by active development.
>
> Yes -- don't just say "potential", since probably your conservatism
> here is justly caused by the horrible problems were were having
> throughout Q4 1999 based on busybox problems.
Yeah. I my ego is still hurting from the pain I caused everyone.
So yes, I have been trying to tread very lightly.
> > In the past, when I have asked about integrating the fixes and
> > such from the newer BusyBoxen, I have either been ignored, or
> > it has been decided to not integrate the newer stuff, except for a
> > few critical bugs.
>
> I don't know about ignored, but I know that you and I have talked, on
> IRC and in email, and you didn't see that the new versions were (a)
> tested enough, or (b) fixed critical enough problems to merit
> inclusion in potato boot-floppies.
Yeah. Ignored was too strong for what I meant to say.
Just that updates to my tree have not been getting fed back into
the boot floppies very well (i.e.
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-boot-0004/msg00378.html
) which is fine, but does leave problems unfixed.
I never got a response to:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-boot-0006/msg00051.html
either.
> > I am pretty close to making the BusyBox 0.44 release at the moment.
>
> Well, that's nice, but I wonder what sort of testing it's had?
Just that I use it here, and it works for me and the other folks
that are using it,
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/
email: andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Reply to: