On 04/16/2012 06:31 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/15/2012 08:19 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >>> I agree, and I will implement that if util-linux's umount does the same. >>> Does it? >> >> Why on earth would that matter? > > Script compatibility.
Migrating to busybox, sure. Migrating from busybox: not our problem. >> + // De-allocate the loop device. This ioctl should be ignored on >> + // any non-loop block devices. >> >> I really don't understand this deference to the limitations of >> util-linux. > > I want to avoid people writing scripts which work with busybox > applets but "mysteriously break" on big distros. Works with big distros, breaks with busybox: busybox has a problem. Works with busybox, breaks with big distros: distros have a problem. Way back when, I was rooting for busybox to _replace_ all those other packages in general use. > Your arguments about umount behavior make a lot of sense. > > Does anyone volunteer to talk to util-linux people to make them > adopt some or all of these proposals? Did anyone volunteer to talk to Minix to get them to implement ext2? Rob -- GNU/Linux isn't: Linux=GPLv2, GNU=GPLv3+, they can't share code. Either it's "mere aggregation", or a license violation. Pick one. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
