[BusyBox] followup on mount oddity from my previous email

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:59:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> >   i configured "mount" into my build of BB-1.00.-pre4 but didn't
> >   create the 
> > link /bin/mount for it yet.  so a previously successful boot still
> > obviously used /sbin/mount and everything worked under 1.00-pre4.
> > 
> >   i made the single change to delete the executable /sbin/mount and
> >   replace
> > it with /sbin/mount -> ../bin/busybox, and that's when i started to
> > get the mount errors above.
> > 
> >   using /bin/mount -> busybox instead of /sbin/mount -> ../bin/busybox
> > gives me the same mount errors at boot time. 
> 
> 
> This is a seperate issue, if you dont select the config option "shell
> applets always win" the busybox shells should run the real /sbin/mount
> rather than the busybox version.
> 
> There is a bug in busybox ash where it always runs the busybox command
> if it exists, there is conditional code that tries to make ash do the
> right thing but its not correct.
> 
> The easiest way around this problem is to compile busybox without
> applets that you dont intend to use. (but it should be fixed in busybox)

this brings up a couple of questions (like you didn't see *that* coming):

1) where is this config option "shell applets always win".  i just 
   went through the entire config menu for 1.00-pre4 and didn't see
   something like this.

2) could you mean an option in /etc/busybox.conf?  for which i can't 
   find any documentation at www.busybox.net.  is there a write-up
   on that file somewhere?

3) finally, i'm not sure what the option described above would do.
   if i have a capability like "mount" built into BB, but the "mount"
   command actually exists as a real executable on my search path, how
   would the BB mount *ever* take precedence?  unless my actual login
   shell is a link to busybox that can handle that, that is.  if my 
   login shell is a legitimate, separate executable, i'm assuming that
   there's no way an internal BB applet could possibly override an
   external executable.  do i understand that correctly?

rday