Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: maximilian attems <email@example.com>, Vagrant Cascadian <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Bug#676001: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox
- From: Michael Tokarev <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:24:43 +0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4FF46E4B.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Michael Tokarev <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <4FD23813.email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <handler.s.C.email@example.com> <4FCD8F07.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120608105203.GE8114@vostochny.stro.at> <4FD1DDB2.email@example.com> <20120608112220.GF8114@vostochny.stro.at> <4FD23813.firstname.lastname@example.org>
severity 676001 wishlist
tags 676001 + wontfix
As shown, historically it was util-linux which
implemented functionality previously found in busybox,
not the other way around, and as noted several times,
it is none of switch_root business to deal with other
filesystems (it is more a misfeature in util-linux
So marking this bug as wontfix, and appropriately
On 08.06.2012 21:36, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 08.06.2012 15:22, maximilian attems wrote:
>> 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
> Switch_root utility in util-linux appeared _after_ the same
> utility appeared in busybox. In util-linux it was implemented
> in 2009, http://git.kernel.org/?p=utils/util-linux/util-linux.git;a=commit;h=711ea7307d54caa74aa89fc7e8614236e3721f1c
> This command there were taken from dracut apparently.
> In there, it has been written in 2002 (I guess), has been
> called "switchroot" (no underscore), and it does _umounting_
> of /dev, /proc, /sys, as can be seen at
> In busybox it has been implemented as switch_root in 2005, in this commit:
> which, obviously, pre-dates the same command in util-linux.
> There in busybox, it is named switch_root right from the
> beginning, and were made after run-init behavour (instead
> of the switchroot from dracut).
> So we can conclude these implementations (in util-linux
> and busybox) are independent and not follows or modelled
> from one another.
> In dractu, were it umounted /dev /proc /sys instead of
> moving these, I guess it was modelled after nash which
> was a bad example of shell to use in initrd, it didn't
> have most standard shell constructs so it weren't easy
> to program in it. But I can only guess.
>> 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.
> I'm not.