The $Subj basically says it all. I'm trying to review configuration of different busubox packages, but I don't really see the intention for some of them, especially for the -static flavour of it.
As originally created by Erik Andersen back in early 2000s, busybox-static intended to be a rescue/repairment tool in case you break your system so that regular tools based on dynamic glibc does not work. But I don't think it is used for such purposes nowadays by anyone, since it may be easier to boot some rescue CD or USB image, even the debian-installer will do for that. I've been told that static busybox _may_ be used by embedded systems, or for testing of such systems with qemu which may have issues loading dynamically-linked executables, but for these, separate custom config/build is used instead of the packaged version. Also, Hector Oron mentioned Crush, and an attempt to use busybox there instead of regular tools like coreutils, but this, again, uses its own package named busybox-crush, and its development has been postproned. Is busybox-static package actually in use? Do you have suggestions for its configuration? A full "allyesconfig" of today busybox is a 13-megabytes binary (statically linked with glibc), I doubt such a monster is really needed (and it will grow with more applets are added to busybox). Obviously some line has to be drawn somewhere, -- no need to enable just _everything_. But in order to understand what to enable, some understanding of intended usage is a good thing to have, too.. :) Thanks! /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d665ee7.1000...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
