4 ms·
As far as I understand, this initiative is primarily about reducing hardcoded dependencies on Busybox. As such, this is indeed what would enable alternative imp
by senzilla 4y ago
As far as I understand, this initiative is primarily about reducing hardcoded dependencies on Busybox. As such, this is indeed what would enable alternative implementations to exist cleanly alongside whatever is the default.
Because yeah, trying to change Alpine's init system, mdev, or other coreutils is indeed not easy/feasible at the moment.
- blueflow 4y agoYou can already install coreutils and udev over busybox, without busybox being removed.
- skarnet 4y agoAnd if you look under the hood, you will see that it's only possible because of a bunch of ad-hoc hacks, which is exactly what my proposal was about: level the playing field and make it possible to have alternatives _without_ the ad-hoc hacks.
- blueflow 4y agoAre you referring to the busybox symlink farm?
- skarnet 4y agoNot at all. I'm referring to the structure of the Alpine packaging, especially around boot scripts, that hardcodes busybox in a number of places and makes it difficult to package an alternative without workarounds - which accumulates tech debt.