Summary: | statically linked /bin/bb from sys-apps/busybox-1.1.0 always says "applet not found", must be renamed "busybox" first | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Joe Wells <sllewbj> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Embedded Gentoo Team <embedded> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Joe Wells
2006-02-20 13:24:33 UTC
bb is a standalone shell, not an applet pass through like `busybox` He is probably missing the bb alias in busybox. A remerge of busybox should fix the problem you notice joe (In reply to comment #2) > He is probably missing the bb alias in busybox. > > A remerge of busybox should fix the problem you notice joe This comment was helpful! Thanks very much! It turns out that on 2006-02-04, three days after sys-apps/busybox-1.1.0 ebuild was created, the bug I encountered was fixed in the ebuild without bumping the version or making an entry in ChangeLog. As a result, anyone who has emerged busybox in the three day period from 2006-02-01 to 2006-02-04 has an unworking /bin/bb and has no easy way of knowing it. Because having a non-working statically linked /bin/bb can prevent busybox from being used to recover from certain kinds of failures, like borking crucial shared libraries, I think this deserves a version bump so that people who unknowingly emerged busybox during the bad three days will get their copy fixed. (In reply to comment #1) > bb is a standalone shell, not an applet pass through like `busybox` I'm not sure whether you realize this, but the only differences between /bin/bb and /bin/busybox are: 1. /bin/bb is statically linked while /bin/busybox is dynamically linked. 2. They have different names. I just noticed that you marked this bug as INVALID. Do you really mean this? This seems quite a genuine bug to me. Anyone who emerged busybox in the bad 3-day period has an unworking /bin/bb. > I'm not sure whether you realize this, but the only differences
> between /bin/bb and /bin/busybox are:
i know whats going on, i wrote the code and the ebuild ... your assumptions here are wrong
`bb` is not meant to be used like `busybox` and in fact it wont work like that ... running `bb` just executes a shell like `ash`
running say `bb ls` and `busybox ls` are not the samething ... `bb ls` means execute a script named 'ls' while `busybox ls` means execute the 'ls' applet
the bug is closed INVALID because your report made it sound like you expected the behavior of `bb` to be same thing as `busybox` ... if that's the case, the bug stays closed
no revbump happened because i didnt really expect anyone to notice, but if it became a problem, i would simply push out the fix
|