Replying to an old bugreport... 15.01.2008 01:03, Jameson Rollins wrote: > Hello. I would like to get an update on the status of this bug. > Right now, busybox-static is basically uninstallable on any system > that needs initramfs-tools, which I imagine is most. The proposed > solution would work, ie. set "Provides: busybox". I would really like > to use this tool but can't at the moment.
I'd like to let the two packages co-exist with each other instead of conflicting. I'm not sure for now how to achieve this. Merely "Providing" busybox in busybox-static, while should work, is wrong IMHO, because the two are used for different purposes, and it's not wise to replace bb in initramfs with busybox-static just by installing -static flavour. Also, no one (I think) tested -static build in initramfs, and I'm not sure it will ever work... ;) Maybe it's a good idea to install it as /bin/busybox-static instead of /bin/busybox, and provide a symlink named /bin/busybox in case regular busybox package is not installed. At least, for that busybox-static needs to recognize its new "other name". Also, busybox-static first need to provide at least the applets/features regular build provides already. I checked the config difference today and hopefully enabled missing parts of -static config which were found in regular config, so this should be fixed now. Currently, busybox is actually not _required_ in initramfs (but initramfs is better - like more powerful - with it). So maybe it's not that problematic anymore. But it's still an issue, obviously, which needs a solution. Thanks! /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc3fdee.8010...@bk.ru
