Fwd: busybox current status

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:30:15PM -0800, Larry Brigman wrote:
>Sorry, I sent this to the individual instead of the list.
>On 11/29/06, Jason Schoon <floydpink at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/06, Paul Fox <pgf at brightstareng.com> wrote:
>> > > >* New applets: hose/faucet? ssh[d]? :)
>> > >
>> > > If you add ssh[d], then we could as well add gcc et al ;)
>> >
>> > do we really think that busybox'ing dropbear would make it that
>> > much smaller?
>>
>>
>> I'll chime in with a resounding "no".  Not only do I think a significant
>> size benefit will be realized, I think we are then in a synchronization
>> nightmare.
>>
>> Matt already has a nicely setup multi-call binary application that replaces
>> other currently larger implementations (such as opensshd).  I think we
>> should let him continue to do that, not move it into Busybox.

Agree, of course.
>>
>
>But if you don't use uclib it requires several libraries that busybox
>does not just to get login
>working.  Just getting to use the busybox lib for user/password would
>be a step in the right
>direction.

We'll provide the possibility to make busybox a PIE in favour of the
older approach that the initial "libbusybox" aimed at, so folks can just
link against
$ ls -ln libbusybox.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 100 100 15 Nov 30 10:05 libbusybox.so -> libbusybox.so.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 100 100 17 Nov 30 10:05 libbusybox.so.1 -> libbusybox.so.1.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 100 100 19 Nov 30 10:05 libbusybox.so.1.2 -> libbusybox.so.1.2.3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 100 100  7 Nov 30 10:05 libbusybox.so.1.2.3 -> busybox

and reuse our code.

Comments?