Re: differences in busybox configurations, part1 (longish)
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 22:06, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote:
>
>> FEATURE_SHADOWPASSWDS
>> support for getspent() and friends.
>> Current: deb n static y udeb n
>> Proposed action: enable for deb
>> Discussion: It is quite unexpected that busybox can't
>> use shadow passwords. On the other hand, there's just
>> a few applets which actually deals with passwords, and
>> most of them are disabled for deb build.
>
> I'd say to enable it on deb since it can be an important applet for
> embedded people to rely on.
I have the gut feeling that static busybox was mostly used for testing
cross-built system images under Qemu user-mode emulation. I can't serve
with references now, but a web search would surely give you relevant
hits. That's why the current static config is so much different from
the other two: all three serve rather different purposes (deb: initramfs
and rescue, udeb: d-i, static: full system testing). However, maybe the
emulation use case isn't present anymore, since qemu-user gained the -L
option... I hope embedded people can report on the current practices.
>> NC_SERVER, NC_EXTRA
>> (netcat options)
>> Current: deb n static n udeb y
>> Proposed action: enable for deb and static
>> Discussion: actually useful for rescue system
>
> Agreed.
>
> I am not sure it ought to be enabled on udeb. Comments?
I often find it easier to keep the server end on the machine being
installed to avoid reconfiguration of the firewall on production
machines (which block incoming connections to all unused ports).
--
Cheers,
Feri.
Reply to: