[BusyBox] Re: Last busybox documentation update

[Erik Andersen]

On Fri Jul 07, 2000 at 02:39:33PM -0700, Mark Allen wrote:
> Erik Andersen wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri Jul 07, 2000 at 02:12:33PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > >
> > > I plan on just using the full blown one from util-linux.  Anything else is
> > > going to just cause grief I suspect.  I have already started working on getting
> > > this merged in.
> > 
> > Hmm.  The more I poke at this, the more I suspect that perhaps fdisk
> > shouldn't live in busybox at all.
> 
> sfdisk is a far more useful program to me personally -- anything that's
> broken in it should be fixed. Anything that avoids interactivity is a
> good thing for our purposes. The standard Linux fdisk is great, but
> can't be scripted with anything but expect, and I doubt we could wedge
> expect into busybox.

I agree it is very useful.  But I can't maintain it very well.  I think that
since you need it, the right solution is to compile up sfdisk from the latest
util-linux and use it from there.  That way, the fdisk experts can worry about
fixing bugs as they pop up.

> Third, I've been compiling busybox with 2.2.16 kernel source just fine.
> I saw someone else was having some kind of problem. I wonder what the
> differences between my environment and his could be?

I suspect that the folks in question may have 2.2.16 installed, but they are
probably compiling vs the kernel headers of some other kernel version (i.e.
/usr/include/linux is not a link to /usr/src/linux/include/linux, but it a
directory with some kernel headers in it -- and those kernel headers are
somehow broken).  Thats my best guess so far.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--