Quoting Frans Pop (firstname.lastname@example.org): > What exactly was the size impact on busybox of adding tar create support? > (I tend to agree with Colin that adding that was bizarre.) ... and I don't remember this was mentioned for D-I purposes. In short, we never requested that change, at least in last months. It happens that Bastian activated tar support along with other changes we asked for (udhcpc, namely). Thus, it was then logically requested that live-installer drops the use of native tar...that's all. It seems at first glance that if we have to balance between tar in busybox and features requested by Colin....the latter seem to be more wished. On the other hand, maybe internal tar support is something interesting for other purposes. After all, D-I is not alone to use busybox, aren't we?
Description: Digital signature