Busybox (was Re: uclibc)

Bennett Todd bet at rahul.net
Mon Nov 8 05:46:46 PST 2004

2004-11-08T13:30:11 Archaic:
> [...] unless we are going for embedded service, I really don't see
> why we should use Busybox.

If you are doing a pure LFS-style system, completely manual, as an
educational tool, then BusyBox probably would belong in BHLFS or
wherever, advanced stuff. BusyBox isn't what you want to use instead
of coreutils/bash/grep/tar/cpio/bzip2/... for a dev machine; it's a
nice tidy component for making minimal initrds, lean servers, etc.

vmlinuz+busybox is enough to get cooking with, then you can add bits
as needed. With a software packaging tool to make adding/removing
individual packages easy, BusyBox is an appealing scaffolding
component for building hardened servers, firewalls, and the like;
put it in there to make the system self-manageable until you've got
your daemons all configured, then tear it out. A system with no
shell and no shell utils is a bit tougher for a burglar to get
around on.

But of HLFS is an LFS, a documentation project teaching people how
to build their own system From Scratch, then first and foremost the
basic distro is a development system, and BusyBox only becomes of
interest on those when you get to building initrds. Boy is it nice
on initrds:-).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/hlfs-dev/attachments/20041108/acd0719b/attachment.sig>

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list