BB menu reorg and upstream packages

Ole-Egil Hvitmyren oehvitmyren at network-electronics.com
Mon Mar 27 08:25:13 UTC 2006


Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Friday 24 March 2006 04:59, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>
>>>  ok, i can appreciate (to some extent) mike f's point about the
>>>correlation to upstream packages (WRT to, say, "coreutils").  but that
>>>argument doesn't really hold WRT to other menu entries like "Linux
>>>System Utilities."  there's no such upstream package called *that*.
>>
>>uhh, yes there is ... it's called "util-linux", and you can find it
>>on kernel.org
> 
> 
> ah, point taken, although the choice of what qualifies as "low-level
> system utilities that are necessary for a Linux system to function" is
> more than a little strange.  why "more" and not "less"?  why "renice"
> and not "nice"?  and "cal"??

On Debian:
olegil at olegil:~$ sudo update-alternatives --list pager
/bin/more
/usr/bin/less
/usr/bin/w3m
/usr/bin/pg

Do you think it's coincidence that more lives in /bin while less lives
in /usr/bin? What happens when the user puts /usr on a separate
partition which for some reason doesn't work one day? Right, he'll at
least have the option to use "more".

A pager is a necessary tool, and "more" is the fallback when all other
pagers fail, ergo more is a necessary tool.

I'll grant you the "cal", "nice" and "renice", though. I can't see any
reason either of the nicers would be more important than the other. And
buffing up "cal" is just silly :-)

Ole-Egil



More information about the busybox mailing list