Rich, I have to ship on day 1 on a range of boxes which are currently running busybox 0.60, 1.10, 1.13 and 1.17
I'm reluctant to blat the existing busybox as part of my upgrade/install process. Who knows what else I might break. I also have the first unit here where I'm trying to install on a PCEngines embedded PC, which comes with both a set of standard Linux utils, and an odd copy of busybox lying about for no purpose I've yet understood ! My desire is to ship a suite of scripts and program which will install and run on any of these without a hitch. That may well mean I can't use the 'much better' non-busybox utilities and commands, even when available. D > *From:* Rich Felker <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Date:* Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:40:30 -0500 > > 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 > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
