This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] busybox 1.23.2-1
- From: "Christian Franke" <Christian dot Franke at t-online dot de>
- To: "cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:35:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ITP] busybox 1.23.2-1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150626084405 dot GQ31223 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
- Reply-to: "Christian Franke" <Christian dot Franke at t-online dot de>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 25 23:18, Christian Franke wrote:
>> I would like to contribute the BusyBox multi-call binary.
>>
>> http://www.busybox.net/
>>
>> ...
>>
> Packaging looks good, but...
>
> AFAIU busybox-standalone is what the name suggests. It's the version of
> busybox with the builtin commands. So, wouldn't that be the preferred
> option of running busybox?
>
> What I'm trying to say is, I'd expect that standalone busybox is
> installed into /usr/bin, rather than hidden under
> /usr/libexec/busybox-standalone/ It would use the commands from
> /usr/bin for everything not in busybox itself, which sounds like a good
> idea to me.
One reason for the decision to symlink /usr/bin/busybox to the
non-standalone version was that upstream declares the standalone feature
still as experimental.
Both variants have its pros and cons.
The standalone shell could run all builtins without symlinks and PATH.
Drawback: Single builtins could not be replaced by external commands.
Hmm... it possibly would make sense to use alternatives(8) for the
/usr/bin/busybox symlink
(and move man page and doc files to a separate busybox-doc package).
Note that both versions could be used to create a tiny 'portable' Cygwin
by copying libexec/busybox{,-standalone} to /some/where.
Which variant is best depends on the use case.
>
> The non-standalone busybox OTOH, is something which is better off
> encapsulated into /usr/libexec/busybox/ I think. It comes with a set of
> commands already available. What's the sense except for testing
> purposes?
On a small Cygwin installation, install busybox and set
PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/libexec/busybox/bin
This will add tiny versions of various commands if the full package is
not installed.
Some busybox commands not included in Cygwin "Base" install:
bzip2, cpio, dos2unix, free, ftpget/put, hexdump, nc, pipe_progress, pscan,
pstree, unix2dos, telnet, top, watch, wget, which, unlzma, unzip, unxz.
IMO not too bad for a single exe which is smaller than bash.exe :-)
>
>> The debug package for the 64-bit version is still missing. I didn't find out
>> yet why cygport does only build the 32-bit debug package. Thanks for any
>> help.
> Hmm, weird. Usually that occurs if your executables are stripped during
> installation, or if the gcc CLI options required to build the debuginfo
> are not propageted to the make process correctly. But it beats me why
> this should differe between 32 and 64 bit.
Today I retried on another machine and it works. Looks like there is
some interesting problem in the Cygwin 64 installation on my build
machine :-)
The final 64-bit version will provide a debug package.
Christian