Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:10:42PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 08.06.2012 14:52, maximilian attems wrote:
> > dude care to have a bit of patience before reassigning back,
> > that be really nice.
> I gave a few days, maybe it was too few, I dunno.
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:45:59AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >> I disagree it is a busybox problem, and don't think it is a
> >> switch_root business (be it from busybox or from util-linux).
> > switch_root in util-linux does it.
> Yes, but it is still none of its business.
that is your personal opinon and shown to be wrong. (:
> > If you name a command switch-root and not run-init, you'd have
> > to take care to emmulate what the original command does.
> > In this case it is util-linux is clearly predating busybox and thus
> > busybox is buggy not fully implementing the command.
> Almost no of busybox commands implements fully the corresponding
> "big brother" behavour.
well in the cases where it is needed and as busybox doesn't do it is a
> But this is not the point.
No, you clearly again miss the point.
> The point is, and I described it above, it is none of switch_root
> business to move other filesystems, because it does not have enough
> information. We've a long list of actions an initramfs does, and
> this list includes mounting many filesystems. The script which
> does that has much more information about what it should do and
> how, and has much more chances to report errors (eg, when the new
> root does not have /proc or /sys directory or whatever).
No and again no.
run-init doesn't move mount things, you could rename switch_root
to run-init, then it would be correct.
You confuse things, switch_root is the new command name by util-linux
and it does a certain number of things. It doesn't matter, if
you personally agree with them or not.
Ah and please stop evading into the init script.