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

Re: Bug#537623: ITP: busybox-syslogd -- Provides syslogd and klogd using busybox' implementation

Hi Luca,

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 01:43:05AM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> user pkg-fso-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org
> usertags 537623 + package-dependencies

*g* I use it on my OpenMoko FreeRunner, too.

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:41:24 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > * Package name    : busybox-syslogd
> >   Version         : 0.1

JFYI, there is a package available for testing at

> May I suggest to use the same version number as busybox?

IMHO that doesn't make much sense since it doesn't really depend on a
specific version of busybox as long as the appropriate commands are
compiled in.

Without packaging I ran it on Etch and also my first tries to package
it were on Etch. So it should basically work from at least busybox
1.1.3 onwards. The package mentioned above definitely runs on Lenny as
well as on Sid which means with busybox versions 1.13.3 and 1.10.2.

> >   Description     : Provides syslogd and klogd using busybox' implementation
> >
> > Debian's busybox package has the syslogd and klogd functionalities
> > already compiled in, but to use them, a little bit more than a few
> > symbolic links is needed.
> >
> > This package provides the appropriate dependencies, the symbolic links
> > for syslogd and klogd, man pages (also symlinks), and init.d scripts.
> I like very much this idea, which to some extents I would like to see
> implemented for another busybox binary, udhcpc (which should probably
> generate from the very same source package).

Then I suggest to rename to source package appropriately. Your
suggestion (while talking to you here at DebConf :-) of
"busybox-aliases" as source package name sounds fine to me.

> This because the udhcpc package contains is a duplication of code
> already included in busybox and nowadays that busybox provides the
> udhcpc binary I do not see the reason for an external package.

And it's far more outdated than a symlinked udhcpc would be.

The udhcp source package seems to be based on busybox' implementation,
too, but the homepage http://udhcp.busybox.net/ (as given in the
copyright file) doesn't exist anymore. The upstream version 0.9.8 is
from 2005, busybox is at 1.1.3 in oldstable and at 1.13.3 in unstable.
According to popcon it still has 100 to 150 installation.

If the symlinked version proves to work reliably, it could be possible
to make it replace the udhcpc package completely in future. (Wouldn't
be the first package I adopt from Eric. :-)

> The same applies to the udhcpd package.

Not completely. The udhcpd command is not compiled in in Debian's
busybox package. So you should probably file a wishlist bug against
busybox to include it.

A propspective busybox-udhcpd package then of course would have a
versioned dependency on the busybox package closing that wishlist bug.

	Regards and thanks for the feedback, Axel
Axel Beckert - abe@deuxchevaux.org, abe@noone.org - http://noone.org/abe/

Reply to: