Bug#375568: busybox-static should include "Provides: busybox"
Replying to an old bugreport...
15.01.2008 01:03, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> Hello. I would like to get an update on the status of this bug.
> Right now, busybox-static is basically uninstallable on any system
> that needs initramfs-tools, which I imagine is most. The proposed
> solution would work, ie. set "Provides: busybox". I would really like
> to use this tool but can't at the moment.
I'd like to let the two packages co-exist with each other
instead of conflicting. I'm not sure for now how to
achieve this. Merely "Providing" busybox in busybox-static,
while should work, is wrong IMHO, because the two are used
for different purposes, and it's not wise to replace bb in
initramfs with busybox-static just by installing -static
flavour. Also, no one (I think) tested -static build in
initramfs, and I'm not sure it will ever work... ;)
Maybe it's a good idea to install it as /bin/busybox-static
instead of /bin/busybox, and provide a symlink named
/bin/busybox in case regular busybox package is not
installed. At least, for that busybox-static needs to
recognize its new "other name".
Also, busybox-static first need to provide at least
the applets/features regular build provides already.
I checked the config difference today and hopefully
enabled missing parts of -static config which were
found in regular config, so this should be fixed now.
Currently, busybox is actually not _required_ in initramfs
(but initramfs is better - like more powerful - with it).
So maybe it's not that problematic anymore. But it's
still an issue, obviously, which needs a solution.