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

Bug#375568: busybox-static should include "Provides: busybox"



Hi, Michael.  Thanks for the response.  Comments below.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 19:56:46 +0400, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote:
> initramfs-tools does not depend on busybox indeed, but it
> recommends busybox|busybox-initramfs.  With default apt
> settings that basically translates to depends, since
> all Recommends are installed too.

Just because apt defaults to installing recommends does not mean that it
is the same thing as Depends.  Depends and Recommends are completely
different, which is why they have different names.  Lots of people turn
of auto-installing of Recommends (like me for example).

> > They are used for the same purpose, one tool.
>
> No, the purpose is actually different.  And for added fun,
> I for one do NOT know the purpose of busybox-static, why
> people use it for in reality, except of several somewhat
> obscure cases.

I actually agree with Bastian here.  Busybox and busybox-static both
provide the same functionality.  They differ only in their sets of
dependencies.

This is actually the crux crux of the whole issue, as I see it.
Busybox-static quite literally provides all of the same functionality as
busybox.  Therefore a designation of "Provides: busybox" is actually the
most logical thing it can do.

In any event, it's also possible that just having them both installable
simultaneously would actually solve my issues.  What if busybox-static
was just installed in

/bin/busybox-static

and then removing the "Conflict: busybox"?  Would that not be a good
solution?  I'm pretty sure that would satisfy my needs.

jamie.

Attachment: pgp3k7VChbaNv.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: