On Saturday 31 January 2009 23:21, Rob Landley wrote: > On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:21:43 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 16:59:40 Rob Landley wrote: > > > My friend Mark is working on a project called Gentoo From Scratch (faking > > > a gentoo stage 1 environment by getting gentoo's portage to run on top of > > > a uClibc/busybox base system), and it turns out portage needs "getent", > > > which is a horrible gnu extension that ain't in SUSv4. > > > > > > Here's a small shell script that more or less implements it. FYI. > > > > why are you reimplementing the wheel ? > > You are _aware_ you're posting to the busybox mailing list, right? > Reimplementing the wheel is sort of what we do here? (To try to come up with > better wheels?) > > > there is already a getent replacement included with uClibc. > > Good to know. Possibly I didn't know about that because neither "make > install" nor "make install_utils" actually put that on the target system, and > thus I didn't know uClibc had one internally? (I don't know _why_ uClibc has > one internally, it seems a strange place for it.
Maybe the reason was "because glibc provides it too". On my system I definitely see it to be a part of glibc: # ls -ld `which getent` lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Jun 20 2006 /usr/bin/getent -> /usr/app/glibc-2.4/bin/getent > However, I'd checked and > busybox hadn't got one. You'll notice I didn't post this message to the > uClibc list.) [skip] Rob, I don't think being caustic helps. Just let Mike and others know that you'd like extra/scripts/getent in uclibc tree to be installed on "make utils_install", otherwise people continually reinvent it. Without telling them how upset you are that it doesn't do it now, and that you hate them and want them to die :) :) :) (I'm JOKING) -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
