Busybox (was Re: uclibc)
bet at rahul.net
Mon Nov 8 18:53:24 PST 2004
2004-11-08T23:28:28 Robert Connolly:
> BLFS is sorta too late to be installing busybox, unless you're building an
Or a hardened server, or a minimal system, or a bootstrapping aid,
> But I suppose in general the GNU/full versions of apps work better,
> and are more robust etc.
I'd say, rather, that casual, uncaring authors of configure and
build scripts sometimes assume capabilities (e.g. cmdline options)
that are only available in the full-on GNU utils, not in simpler
> Busybox just seems really convenient.
I like it a lot myself. Wouldn't try and build a system From Scratch
with it instead of coreutils/bash/grep/... (such a long list of
pkgs!), but when software packaging lets you easily distinguish
between build-time and run-time, BusyBox is definitely nice to have
in the toolbox.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the hlfs-dev