Yes, they are way significantly different. One is the "busybox" chroot,
the other is the "asmutils" chroot. It is certainly possible that it only
works in some circumstances, or can't follow symlinks, or has some weird
dependency that I don't know about. It does work, and it really is only
128 bytes, (being written in assembly language helps)... Try running
something else as the primary program, such as:
chroot /mnt /bin/sh
then in that shell run lilo.
-Tom
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Matthew Cornell wrote:
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Matthew Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: tomsrtbt: is chroot broken in 1.7.361?
>
> Hmmm. I'm skeptical that it works. I have (luckily) two versions of
> your disk - 1.7.185 and 1.7.361. The older one's chroot works great
> with something like:
>
> mount /dev/hda1 /mnt
> chroot /mnt /sbin/lilo
>
> Even typing 'chroot' by itself prints a usage. The newer one doesn't
> do *anything*; typing it by itself prints nothing, and running the
> above command does not run lilo. It really looks
> broken. Unfortunately, I don't have the "ls -l" information for the
> older one, but I bet it's bigger than 128 bytes. Are the two versions
> significantly different? Obviously I'm still missing something...
>
> matt
>
> It works, but if it fails, it tells you *nothing*, it is the
> "asmutils" chroot, which (believe me) is on my list to enhance to be
> more friendly. It probably does not have a default program- that is,
> the gnu-chroot you can do "chroot /mnt" and it will nicely assume you
> mean "chroot /mnt /bin/sh", this chroot probably doesn't make the
> assumption that if you don't give a program you must really mean
> /bin/sh, you probably have to type both args. Let me know if that
> doesn't get you going. I will dig into all of the asmutils and make
> enhanced versions for tomsrtbt at some point. -Tom
>
