On 6/26/20 3:26 AM, Norbert Lange wrote: > I am not "protesting", but worst case would be I spend some time implementing > said applet but for some reason it is not welcome to replace the "demo" > applet. > It possibly a roadblock of someone providing a C replacement. > >> Feel free to persuasively argue in favor of busybox being a better piece >> of software if it includes a convenient nologin applet. > > Yeah, that's my opinion. > >> I'm afraid I >> personally am not convinced by any argument claiming it already does >> have one. > > I don't get that, you are not convinced because the "demo" is already > sufficient, > or you are not convinced for arguments *preventing* a C nologin applet > (because it already has a shell one)?
My "random user" opinion is that busybox currently doesn't have a nologin applet, because only C applets count (and anything else is unreliable vendor-specific shellscripts, regardless of whether or not they happen to reside inside the busybox binary). Therefore I would be surprised and disappointed if the busybox maintainer rejected a patch adding one by saying "the shell one is good enough". As you pointed out, it requires a bunch of features such as a shell, which may not be desired, and for that reason alone, I would intuitively expect "here is a nice C version of 'nologin'" to be a valuable patch. -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
