Releasing 1.02 and 1.1-pre1.

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 10:45, Jason Schoon wrote:
> I like the idea of potentially supporting runlevels in Busybox. I don't
> particularly care if it is in shell script or C.
>
> It was unclear from quickly looking at the site though where the Busybox
> patch was at. Why not submit the changes to the list as a Busybox patch,
> and let the group review it? It might help to give a better description to
> the list of what you are trying to accomplish as well. I thought from
> previous emails that you were simply trying to replace init. LSB runlevel
> support is much more valuable to state in my opinion.
>

I think it would be nice if busybox init had the potential to support 
runlevels (as a CONFIG option), but my cleanup of init was lost during the 
endless pre-1.0 feature freeze, and I haven't gotten around to redoing it 
yet.

Implementing some individual's init script in C is a side issue, and since 
init just goes and triggers some program (whatever the si: or l3: lines point 
to) it doesn't really matter whether or not that program is written in C or 
is a shell script.  Busybox shouldn't have to care.

Making libbb a shared library should help people build stuff like this against 
busybox without having to integrate it into busybox, by the way.  (Query, 
would such a library be lgpl or gpl?)

None of this is really a 1.1-pre1 issue, though.  I think we've got plenty of 
features for the next release already...

Rob