On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 10:45:00AM +0000, David Collier wrote: > Denys, > > your suggestion above for fixing tar to work with stdin is wonderful - > and I'm sure it will work. > > But it illustrates the different world-views that you and I have. In an > illuminating way. > > You think/speak as if busybox is infinitely mutable, and an issue can be > changed by improving it. I think of the busybox version I find on > existing computers as part of the fixed background, and am looking at > ways to work with any/all of them without changing them.
I think it depends a lot on whether you're: 1) writing scripts to run on systems you know will be using BusyBox, possibly an old version of it, OR 2) setting up a system that should be able to run arbitrary scripts that work on an existing environment or standard (Linux+GNU userspace or POSIX for instance), and wanting to use BusyBox in place of the traditional bloated implementations. In the first case, BusyBox (possibly with bugs) is the static background you're stuck with. In the latter case, some known "good profile" is the static background you're fortunate enough to be assuming, and you want BusyBox to conform to that. I for one am definitely in the latter camp. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
