On Thu, 2026-09-10 at 13:07 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > On 9/9/26 15:45, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > Ubuntu is shipping busybox-static by default (the ubuntu-standard > > depends on it). Archaeology found the reason for it: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/busybox/+bug/505887 > > > > Summary from the bug: If e.g. libc is broken a stock ubuntu system can > > currently not be booted. With busybox-static installed on the system, > > users could boot with "init=/bin/busybox sh" to be able do recovery. > > > > But for this, wouldn't it be better to boot with rd.break to stop at the > > end of the initrd? Then users have full access to their system (they > > could chroot into it), but still be able to use all the working tools > > inside the initrd? > Personally I don't see value of having busybox-static in initrd at all. > And yes, when initrd contains busybox binary, that one can be used to > explore the system in case of some problem. Again, even there, it is > much, much more common to use some live media to boot and do stuff from > there, having all tools available. > > I'd switch back to regular busybox in this case.
I agree. busybox-static makes no sense in the initrd since we already have glibc in the initrd anyway. I'll drop recommending busybox-static as alternative from dracut in the next upload. > And I never liked that busybox-static in ubuntu initrd. This hasn't been the case up until recently. Up to 26.04 Ubuntu installs busybox-static by default but provides busybox-initramfs to be used by initramfs-tools. Since you were against adding a busybox-initrd to Debian (see https://bugs.debian.org/1135987) I dropped busybox-initramfs from Ubuntu (see https://launchpad.net/bugs/2157328). > BTW, in order to do that others are proposing (renaming binary to > busybox-static and dropping the initrd hook), we should switch to > regular busybox in ubuntu first :) Yes, I created those bugs for that: [FFe] Please drop busybox-static from lubuntu-desktop-minimal and ubuntu-standard https://launchpad.net/bugs/2167086 [FFe] Make busybox and busybox-static co-installable (dropping initramfs-tools support from busybox-static) https://launchpad.net/bugs/2167087 I am fine with Ubuntu applying the change in advance, but I want to prevent the busybox package to diverge from Debian. In case you have the busybox change prepared, could you share it so that I can use it in Ubuntu? If not, should I create a MP on salsa with this change? -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
