Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
> Mind that this RFC is not about replacing busybox, but about introducing
> changes that would make such endeavour more pain-free if ever happening.
> But let me very briefly go into that territory too.
> Why replace busybox?
> To have better implementation of widely used tools, of course.
> Any candidates?
I threw away busybox and other "core/base" packages (they are, as a
matter of fact, present because of dependencies but are dummy and
contain nothing) and replaced them with:
sbase - portable Unix utilities (cat, du, ls etc.);
ubase - unportable Linux utilities (mount, ps, dd etc.);
sinit - a simple init;
svc - service management (init scripts were brought from stali and
vis - a text editor (sbase has a very ed implementation);
mksh - a shell;
nawk - the One True Awk;
pigz - for gzip
iproute2 - for various net utilities;
sdhcp - a small DHCP client;
curses - NetBSD curses.
What's missing (stty, patch, diff etc.) can be pulled from BSDs or
With this on top of the "real" Alpine core (musl/apk-tools etc.) you
have a complete distribution.
Also, what can be statically linked should be statically linked.
Now, we need a decent file system layout, throw away all GNU
dependencies, link everything statically (, write our own kernel, reach
Mars before Elon Musk...)
Received on Mon Feb 12 2018 - 13:26:22 GMT