Busybox (was Re: uclibc)

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Nov 8 15:28:28 PST 2004


On November 8, 2004 08:46 am, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 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.

BLFS is sorta too late to be installing busybox, unless you're building an 
initrd. But I suppose in general the GNU/full versions of apps work better, 
and are more robust etc. Busybox just seems really convenient.

robert



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list