Re: [gentoo-dev] Replace 'sash' with 'busybox' as our static rescue shell

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1037 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> for those of you who do not know, busybox is a single binary which implements 
> the functionality of most system utils ... it does not completely implement 
> some features, just the most common ones, but then again sash does the same 
> thing :)
> 
> details:
> - busybox implements a *ton* more applets ... it can be configured to replace 
> over 100 system funcs while sash provides about 35 ...
> - size wise, busybox would be larger, probably by about ~150k - ~200k
> - busybox commands are transparent while sash requires you to prefix internal 
> commands with a '-' ... so running `cp` in busybox will use busybox's cp 
> while sash needs to run '-cp', and you can still execute the real cp by 
> doing /bin/cp in busybox
> 
> feedback !?

Could this make it easier to use busybox for the actual root on a
LiveCD?  If so, then I'm all for it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]