Fwd: busybox current status

[Larry Brigman]

Sorry, I sent this to the individual instead of the list.
On 11/29/06, Jason Schoon <floydpink at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/06, Paul Fox <pgf at brightstareng.com> wrote:
> > > >* New applets: hose/faucet? ssh[d]? :)
> > >
> > > If you add ssh[d], then we could as well add gcc et al ;)
> >
> > do we really think that busybox'ing dropbear would make it that
> > much smaller?
>
>
> I'll chime in with a resounding "no".  Not only do I think a significant
> size benefit will be realized, I think we are then in a synchronization
> nightmare.
>
> Matt already has a nicely setup multi-call binary application that replaces
> other currently larger implementations (such as opensshd).  I think we
> should let him continue to do that, not move it into Busybox.
>

But if you don't use uclib it requires several libraries that busybox
does not just to get login
working.  Just getting to use the busybox lib for user/password would
be a step in the right
direction.

I guess that is really an issue for dropbear not busybox and projects
that need ssh(d)