[re]Bug in busybox base applet?

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 02 September 2005 09:29, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 09:18 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Sorry, I didn't knew that busybox has a standalone shell applet now - I
> thought and meant sash as on http://www.tip.net.au/~dbell/.

It's an option to busybox ash.  It didn't work for a long time.  I patched it 
(not quite the same as fixed, but it should work under most circumstances 
now.  You need a /proc directory, so it's not too happy about chroot 
environments...)

Rob