BusyBox Strikes Again?
On 4/4/08, Marco Amadori <marco.amadori at gmail.com> wrote:
> My fix is just related to a standard sid build that boots,
For those who weren't on #IRC and for urgent needings before something
similar will be integrated in live-intramfs official packages, here is
the url of the fixes:
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/mammadori-guest/live-initramfs.git;a=summary
--
ESC:wq
On 4/4/08, Marco Amadori <marco.amadori at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > anyway.
>
> 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.
> --
> ESC:wq
>
Reply to: