BusyBox Strikes Again?
On 4/4/08, Kel Modderman <kel at otaku42.de> wrote:
> > > This may not even be the cause of this _specific_ bug, but I mention it
Thanks for mentioning it, it will be handy in the future. In fact this
bug seems related to different way of parsing parameters and to some
missing libraries kblibc depends upon.
> > what do you suggest, should we basically just call busybox everywhere to
> > get rid of the failures?
> No, thats probably overkill. A careful audit is required though, of existing
> code and future imports from casper, to ensure busybox specific features are
> used correctly. I think only in very compelling cases should a klibc-utils
> binary be overridden like in above example.
I agree, My fix is just related to a standard sid build that boots,
maybe other use cases which includes using more klibc binaries could
need more care (e.g. persistence)
> I finally think that the initramfs shell environment is consistent for both
> when busybox is present or not in initramfs. It makes life difficult for
> live-initramfs, however, because of the overall size of the scripts...
I agree again.