Busybox (was Re: uclibc)

Bennett Todd 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 
> initrd.

Or a hardened server, or a minimal system, or a bootstrapping aid,
or ....

> 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
verions.

> 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.

-Bennett
-------------- 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/20041109/b4ffcbe9/attachment.sig>


More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list