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

Re: differences in busybox configurations, part1 (longish)



On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:55:13 +0000
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 20:44, Hector Oron <hector.oron@gmail.com>
> wrote: ...
> > Crush development has been postponed until multiarch is ready but
> > some of the bits for the proof of concept can be found at emdebian
> > svn [0].
> ...
> 
> What should we do? Just "sync" static with deb and later work on that?
> Seems like a more logical way for now at least.

Each embedded installation may benefit from a slightly tweaked busybox
from the busybox upstream default. All embedded installations of busybox
are likely to benefit from a busybox built against a configuration
completely unlike anything useful in standard Debian.

For Emdebian Crush, I stuck to a busybox config which was fairly close
to the standard default busybox configuration and nothing like the
Debian config.

I don't think there is a way of providing a single configuration of
busybox which is both ideal for d-i and friendly to embedded systems.

I cannot recommend any embedded system should use any version of
busybox built by Debian for d-i without *also* installing and using
coreutils, login, passwd, shadow, perl and all the rest. i.e. busybox
from Debian is only suitable for what Debian normally does with busybox
- which explicitly does *not* include handling passwords, shadow or
otherwise.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgplvInNB1Enm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: