> > earlier in this list it has been suggested to have a busybox-bf package in > > addition to the normal busybox package. I would strongly encourage this, > > though for different reasons: > > > What you suggest sounds reasonable to me.
> I wonder if we could use the .udeb for this purpose? Adam? I'm not Adam . . . . anyway we have discussed using udebs on b-f for other things (dhcp clients) and I think the gerneral thought was that we didn't want to. Not a whole lot of good reasons not to, mostly it is just easier to keep pulling in debs. The path of least resistance is to make busybox-bf. I personally don't like the proliferation of -bf pacakges. I'd rather the b-f build system build all packages from source, perhap seven applying patches before-hand when necessary. -David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
