Control: retitle -1 make busybox and bysybox-static co-installable
On 9/11/26 15:29, Benjamin Drung wrote:
...>> 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).
uh.
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
Thank you! Let's do it on debian too.
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?
I created a branch in debian busybox repository, with two commits - one
to rename the binary and drop the hooks, and another is a changelog entry.
See
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/busybox/-/commits/busybox-static-rename
for it.
I don't have it in main branch for now, since before applying that, we should
drop the |busybox-static alternatives in dependencies. I'll file bug reports
about this.
Thanks,
/mjt
