Stephen Bennett <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:25:24PM +0100, Bernd Steinhauser wrote: >> I'd vote against it. busybox is not strictly spoken a system >> dependency, but it can be a vital tool in case of a broken system. >> Since it doesn't really have many dependencies itself, you would >> just gain about 4-5MB disk space. > > Ditto. There's no real cost to having it there, and if you find yourself > with a broken system it's extremely useful.
Those are arguments for including busybox with the stage tarballs. For that, it does not have to be part of the system set. The package app-editors/e4r is already handled in this manner. So we have yet to hear an argument against removing busybox from the system set. Regards, Elias Pipping _______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
