• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 98 subscribers
  • Views 2709 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

busybox vs util-linux-ng in Linux filesystem

Louis Lu93481
Expert 6025 points

Champs,

    My customer found some of the routines in the ./bin path are not link to the busybox, for example the mount is link to umount.util-linux-ng, they tried to relink the mount to busybox and it worked. Is there any different between using busybox and util-linux-ng? Why we used util-linux-ng rather than busybox, any reasones or issues faced? Are there any risk for re-linking all the util-linux-ng to busybox? Any comments are welcome.

Regards,

Louis

  • 0
    Expert 1600 points

    Are they booting into the busybox rootfs? Sounds like they are using a our standard rootfs and simply redirecting the ./bin calls back to busybox. -- please confirm

    Louis Lu93481 said:

    My customer found some of the routines in the ./bin path are not link to the busybox, for example the mount is link to umount.util-linux-ng, they tried to relink the mount to busybox and it worked. Is there any different between using busybox and util-linux-ng?

    [ORB] -- You are mixing environments at this point and I dont know the overall impacts however I assume you can do this....

    Louis Lu93481 said:

    Why we used util-linux-ng rather than busybox, any reasones or issues faced? Are there any risk for re-linking all the util-linux-ng to busybox? Any comments are welcome.

    [ORB] -- not sure why we are using util-linux-ng or the diff between the two. Normally I would use busybox as a minimal rootfs during borad bringup. This would allow you to test your environment prior to loading a full distro.