[re]Bug in busybox base applet?

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 01 September 2005 04:04, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> I can imagine that there are situations where you do not want (or able)
> to install tens of sym-links (and just use shell functions) just have
> one binary named "busybox".
> I just can't get a good example together.

A) Isn't this what the standalone shell is for?

B) How does the binary being named "busybox" screw this up?

Rob