[patch] proposed change to busybox option parsing.

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 05 September 2005 01:43, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
> > You can also edit the source code if you really really really really
>
> really
>
> > want busybox to be called "bb", but unless you can explain what possible
> > advantage doing that has there's no point in us adding a gratuitous
> > config option that has no purpose.
>
> At least on mmu less system I have found it to be an advantage of splitting
> busybox into several binaries with different configs, i.e. fileutils,
> textutils etc.
>
> It was some time ago I did that though, but it only took some Makefile
> tweaking.

And you can still do this.  And you can even hard link them all together if 
you like.  You don't have to have a single file called "busybox" anywhere on 
your system, and busybox will work just fine...

This is a separate issue.

Rob