[re]Bug in busybox base applet?

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Friday 02 September 2005 02:21, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 07:25, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Quoting Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd at firmix.at>:
> > > I can imagine that there are situations where you do not want (or able)
> > > to install tens of sym-links (and just use shell functions) just have
> > > one binary named "busybox".
> > > I just can't get a good example together.
> >
> > An example:
> > My machine loads the kernel and a simple initrd via PXE, and the initrd
> > then loads some modules (mostly network related), configures the ethernet
> > IF, mounts a NFS and pivots root to it. For this I don't care having tens
> > of symlink in the initrd, as user won't see it anyway. Bloats a little bit
> > the init script, but that's the way I choosed (plus it fits the scheme you
> > described! ;-) ).
> 
> If you _do_ have one binary named "busybox" and want the multiplexing 
> behavior, it works.  The new requirement is that the binary _be_ named 
> "busybox", whereas before it would fall back to the multiplexing behavior for 
> any name it didn't recognize.
> 
> You can put this binary in any directory and call it via ./ or put it at the 
> head of $PATH.  Or you can rename it "ash" and use the standalone shell 
> option so it calls its built-in utilities that way.  If you have some strange 
> religious obligation you can change the name "busybox" on line 149 of 
> applet.c to "harvey-the-yodeling-hamster" and call it that way, but nobody's 
> come up with an example yet of when this might actually be needed.
> 
> You can also create symlinks to whatever it's called (as a normal user).  You 
> can rename the binary to the command you want it as that command.
> 
> Incidentally, I'm currently working on adding a "make standalone", based off 
> of the script I posted in february.  The down side to this is I'm not good 
> with makefiles, but I'm trying to bash past that (juggling it with the 8 
> gazillion other things I'm doing).
> 
> The point of "make standalone" is to build busybox as dozens of individual 
> executables.  (No, my first pass won't make libbb.a into libbb.so, I'm just 
> linking each one against libbb.a for now...)

Yay, this gets serious. I did not see so much activity on bb front
for a long time.

Thanks Rob!
--
vda