On Wed, 2026-09-16 at 10:40 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > > 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.
Thanks. I found them before you wrote the email and used the first commit for the Ubuntu upload. I added several Breaks entries to busybox-static to avoid upgrading busybox-static and loosing busybox inside the initrd. > 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 for doing the paperwork here. The change in Ubuntu is nearly done (I haven't uploaded virtme-ng because I wanted to wait for the outcome of the discussion in bug #1147076) and I haven't forwarded the patches since I assume that your bug reports should be enough to get the same changes in Debian. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
