4 ms·
Busybox is designed for extremely minimalist and embedded use cases, so they have a legitimate reason for avoiding systemd as a dependency.
by tapoxi 2y ago
Busybox is designed for extremely minimalist and embedded use cases, so they have a legitimate reason for avoiding systemd as a dependency.
- ksp-atlas 2y agoI made a small busybox based statically compiled distro which used busybox init, busybox init is basically just a bunch of shell scripts
- megous 2y agoBusybox init is a binary. It can run anything (based on /etc/inittab) incl. other binaries. There's no need for it to run shell scripts (other than /etc/inittab lines which are executed under `sh -c "..."`).
- klysm 2y agoYou can make similarly small deployments with systemd. I’m not sure it’s that legitimate
- dark-star 2y agoyes, I know, but the linked page does it on a Fedora Desktop system. Not exactly what anyone would use for a stripped down embedded system
- bryango 2y agoI don't think the author intends to provide a serious production solution, at least not for now. Runit tools in busybox - up to the task? Let's test busybox's runit applets in a hypothetical ;) scenario when someone needs to stop running, say, systemd on, say, a Fedora machine. No doubt this will expose various shortcomings. To me, This just seems like a fun experiment to demonstrate busybox's capabilities.