On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Jack Mitchell <m...@communistcode.co.uk> wrote: > is 'anybox' a good name for the virtual provider? What happens if we have a > new suite of core utility replacements without box in the name, I assume it > will be a nightmare to retroactivly change the name so we should probably > come up with a more generic one now. virtual/core-utils, virtual/base-utils?
I think thats a fair point. I think virtual/busybox could be another option but it might confuse some people seeing the word busybox virtual/core-utilities will make it sufficiently not confuse with coreutils. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
