`busyboxvi` is not working like before

[Isaac Dunham]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:45:14PM +0100, Steven Honeyman wrote:
> On 19 October 2014 14:22, walter harms <wharms at bfs.de> wrote:
> > I would vote for a busybox-next (or what you call it).
> > A branch that easly fold back into the main but contains all
> > the recent patches.
> > That givce a clear space for experiements and makes it possible for
> > denis to see the reqiered changes.
> 
> Well, I am a newbie to git, but I'll give it a go seeing as nobody else has:
> 
> https://github.com/stevenhoneyman/busybox
> 
> I created a branch "busybox-next" and have made a start on applying
> patches from here (and some from OpenWRT).
> Either it will stay ahead or inline with upstream, or I'll remove it.
> I have no intention to create a fork; all upstream changes will be
> merged.
> 
> ...if I can figure out how to use git properly :)
> 
> Pull requests are welcome for any patches I might have missed.
> 
> 
> Steven.

Looking through the logs and patches.

I can't seem to find where miscutils/lock.c was submitted, but I can see why
it never got merged.
It simply duplicates a subset of the functionality of flock incompatibly,
while completely ignoring the Busybox infrastructure.
eg:
lock option	flock option
-s		-s
-u		-u
-w		(flock; flock -u)
(default)	-n		#as far as I can tell from the help
(none)		-w <timeout>
		-o
		-c command

usage() instead of calling show_usage(), handmade getopt() equivalent
instead of getopt32().

dmesg -C should have been redone for compatability with standard dmesg.

Thanks,
Isaac Dunham