Why not just use hardlinks then? You can replace your binary by... replacing your binary.
-- Jim -----Original Message----- From: busybox-boun...@busybox.net [mailto:busybox-boun...@busybox.net] On Behalf Of Harald Becker Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:46 AM To: busybox@busybox.net Subject: Question about symlinking to busybox Hi! On installation busybox creates either hardlinks for every applet or a separate symlink for each applet, which means you you use around 200 symlinks = inodes for this. Why don't you create a single symlink pointing to the absolute path of busybox and do hardlinks to the symlink for the remaining applets? Would be fine if busybox could install it in this way. You get the advantage of both types of linking. Flexibility (you can just replace your binary without reinstalling links) and space saving on filesystem (needs just 2 inodes, one for the binary and one for the symlink). Comments? -- Harald _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
