| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> i dont want to discuss the logistics of how this will be done just yet ... |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> the idea is to remove 'sash' from our system target and replace it with |
| 5 |
> busybox ... there are a few applets that sash implements and busybox does not |
| 6 |
> (chattr ed file lsattr printenv sum where), but i added chattr, lsattr, |
| 7 |
> printenv, and sum to busybox yesterday :) ... i've never heard of 'where' and |
| 8 |
> going by its behavior in sash, it's basically 'which' ... that leaves us with |
| 9 |
> 'ed' and 'file' which i think we can ignore and be OK ... |
| 10 |
..... |
| 11 |
> feedback !? |
| 12 |
> -mike |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Yes, Will you provide a migration phase? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That means, can you put busybox-shell to auto-conflict sash and |
| 18 |
link /bin/sash to /bin/busybox-sh or what the binary is called? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Oh, and unless you have another editor as binary built into your shell, |
| 21 |
don't remove ed. A "trusted" editor is good. Sash is seldom used for |
| 22 |
"My system is haxxored" however its often used for "I fucked up glibc" |
| 23 |
and an editor is a handy thing, even if its as obscure as "ed" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Otherwise, I'd suggest this is a "default change" for 2005.next rather |
| 26 |
than a replacement "right now". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
//Spider |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
begin .signature |
| 34 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 35 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 36 |
end |
Archives