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

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.



Reply to: