On 09/07/2020 10:19, Rui Salvaterra wrote:
down this rabbit hole. Please disregard this patch, as well as the one
I sent to change the default behaviour of BusyBox. It's just not worth
the hassle and potential issues, at all.
I do not oppose any patches to switch scripts to SuSv3 syntax: in the
Hi, Henrique,
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 14:00, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
>
> Unless the size savings are very high to justify it, it is probably a
> very bad idea to disable SuS-v2 support in busybox.
>
> And it would need to be a sizeable reduction to be worth it indeed: as
> you already no
On 09/07/2020 05:04, Rui Salvaterra wrote:
Before disabling support for SUSv2 by default on BusyBox, care must be taken to
ensure the arguments are SUSv3-compliant. Make it so.
Unless the size savings are very high to justify it, it is probably a
very bad idea to disable SuS-v2 support in busy
Before disabling support for SUSv2 by default on BusyBox, care must be taken to
ensure the arguments are SUSv3-compliant. Make it so.
Signed-off-by: Rui Salvaterra
---
package/base-files/files/lib/preinit/02_sysinfo | 2 +-
package/base-files/files/lib/preinit/99_10_failsafe_login
