[BusyBox] udhp/dhcpd.c (lost/rejected) patch

[Alejandro Mery]

>>Why is the foreground option okay for udhcpc but not
>>udhcpd?
>>
>>...doug
> 
> 
> There's one example of a better argument. :)

hi,
based on http://udhcp.busybox.net/lists/udhcp/2004-April/000048.html i 
did the following patch to apply against trunk/udhcp:HEAD

http://svn.exactcode.de/t2/trunk/package/network/udhcp/udhcpd-foreground.patch

in my opinion the whole auto-background code is a big bloat and should 
be removed, but this option is less intrusive.

Alejandro Mery