I can't believe it's not getent.

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org
Mon Feb 2 05:09:20 UTC 2009


On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009 23:21, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Good to know.  Possibly I didn't know about that because neither "make
>> install" nor "make install_utils" actually put that on the target system, and
>> thus I didn't know uClibc had one internally?  (I don't know _why_ uClibc has
>> one internally, it seems a strange place for it.
>
> Maybe the reason was "because glibc provides it too".

yes, `getent` is a glibcism only, so putting it in uClibc makes sense

>> However, I'd checked and
>> busybox hadn't got one.  You'll notice I didn't post this message to the
>> uClibc list.)
> [skip]
>
> Rob, I don't think being caustic helps.
>
> Just let Mike and others know that you'd like extra/scripts/getent
> in uclibc tree to be installed on "make utils_install",

makes sense to me

> otherwise people continually reinvent it.

what's worse is that the version with uClibc is widely tested (at
least in Gentoo) and catches known corner cases / odd / undocumented
usage whereas random reinventions by a single person do not
-mike


More information about the busybox mailing list