[BusyBox] Re: What happens with busybox/Makefile?

Pavel Roskin pavel_roskin at geocities.com
Wed Jun 7 01:08:52 UTC 2000


Hello!

Erik, you mentioned in a private message systems that don't have shared
libraries. This means that you have libc functions linked to every
executable. Shouldn't we merge Busybox and Tinylogin then?

Pros:

1) One copy of libc on the disk and in memory
2) One build system (makefiles etc.)
3) Common utility functions (fatalError etc)
4) One mailing list less (but you could split this one into busybox-net,
busybox-security etc some day, which is IMHO better)

Cons:

1) Dependency on libcrypt
2) Too big to maintain?

In fact, you don't have to crypt the passwords. You can just hash them,
i.e. use a one-way function. GNU libc includes an md5-based crypt()
implementation, so it should be legal worldwide. Or you can have the
passwords XORed in /etc/shadow readable only by root.

Pavel






More information about the busybox mailing list