busybox Reboot

Bernhard Fischer rep.nop at aon.at
Mon Feb 27 16:30:26 UTC 2006


On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:17:21PM +0000, Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
>Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:58:02PM -0000, Syed Ahmed wrote:
>> 
>>>hi all i been using busybox 0.60.5 on i386 with lilo boot loader every now and then it will reboot for no reason any ideas how i can catch it or diagnose it?
>> 
>> 
>> busybox-0.60.5 is old and no longer supported. Try the current stable
>> release (1.1.0) or preferably the current -snapshot. Both are available
>> here: http://busybox.net/downloads/
>
>There is one problem with that.
>
>A WHOLE lot of stuff is COMPLETELY rewritten (functionality wise, not
>just bug fixes) between 0.60.5 and 1.1.0. Things like syslog, su etc
>works completely different between the two revisions, which means it's
>not a simple recompile for many of us.
>
>Some times it just doesn't pay off to do the upgrade, because it's just
>too much work. And in certain cases, you don't have free hands to just
>upgrade either.

Yes, I understand this. Still, if you use old software and ask somebody
else to debug that stuff, then it's imho only fair to try to reproduce
the issue with a somewhat current release, if only to see if it is a
problem with the old software or a hardware problem.

I don't know on how many boxes the old binary of Syed Ahmed is running,
but generally, if it works ok on most boxes and erroneously reboots on
only a few, then i'd suspect bad hardware. If it behaves like this on
all boxes (which are verified to be ok, HW wise), then it's more likely
a bug somewhere, be it in busybox itself or in the toolchain, obviously.
>
>Please, please, please remember this when people who use an older
>release have a problem. They might not have the luxury of changing their
>entire system just for a quick fix. If I cannot get any support without
>upgrading, then I might have to say no to using your product, because
>people above me in my organisation might have policies about things like
>that. Me not using busybox might be excactly what you're looking for,
>but then again... :-)

I don't mean to turn away anybody, but ment to ask to reproduce this
with a current release just to see if it fails there, too.




More information about the busybox mailing list