[re]Bug in busybox base applet?

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 02 September 2005 05:56, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 06:10 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Then I don't need busybox anyway.

So you're going to use busybox's standalone shell mode without using busybox?  
How does that work, exactly?

> > B) How does the binary being named "busybox" screw this up?
>
> Relying on the (exact) name "busybox" screws this up if the the name is
> "busybox-suid".

And relying on the name "ls" doesn't work if they rename the executable 
"ls.static" or "ls-nocolor".

Your point?

Rob