[patch] proposed change to busybox option parsing.

[Aurelien Jacobs]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 05:41:53 -0500
Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> On Monday 05 September 2005 01:43, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
> > > You can also edit the source code if you really really really
> > > really
> >
> > really
> >
> > > want busybox to be called "bb", but unless you can explain what
> > > possible advantage doing that has there's no point in us adding a
> > > gratuitous config option that has no purpose.
> >
> > At least on mmu less system I have found it to be an advantage of
> > splitting busybox into several binaries with different configs, i.e.
> > fileutils, textutils etc.
> >
> > It was some time ago I did that though, but it only took some
> > Makefile tweaking.
> 
> And you can still do this.  And you can even hard link them all
> together if  you like.  You don't have to have a single file called
> "busybox" anywhere on  your system, and busybox will work just fine...
> 
> This is a separate issue.

Not completely... because you can't do such a thing anymore :
  textutils --install -s

You would have to replace it with something like :
  ln -s /bin/textutils /tmp/busybox-textutils
  /tmp/busybox-textutils --install -s
  rm -f /tmp/busybox-textutils

Some people may consider this a regression...

Aurel