[BusyBox] [patch] Make standalone shell more reliable.

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 07 April 2005 05:34 am, Vladimir N. Oleynik wrote:
> Rob,
>
> > If we exec /proc/self/exe and only fall back to /bin/busybox if /proc
> > isn't there, then we have a reasonable chance of having the standalone
> > shell work even if busybox isn't installed in /bin on the system in
> > question.
>
> Oh.. No.
> http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2004-September/012688.html

I know some embedded systems won't have /proc, and thus won't 
have /proc/self/exe.  That's why it falls through to exec /bin/busybox if the 
first exec fails.

In theory, there could be just one exec with a config option specifying where 
it should be, but I personally think that's asking for a bit too much 
micromanagement from the person configuring the system...

Rob