Testing for BusyBox 1.2.2.

[Natanael Copa]

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 10:39 -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 October 2006 8:17 am, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 16:34 -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Ok, http://busybox.net/downloads/busybox-1.2.1.fixes.patch now has
> everything
> > > that's going into 1.2.2.  All I can say right now is that when you apply
> it,
> > > the result builds with defconfig.
> > >
> > > Anyone feel like testing it before I roll up one last release and get out
> of
> > > Denis' way?
> >
> > start-stop-daemon --exec don't work as expected. I'm looking into it.
> 
> Let me know what you find.  I dumped tarballs in the downloads directory but
> I'm happy to replace them any time up until I put the announcement upon the
> web page.  (Probably this evening.)

Looks like there is a fundamental design error. I can't understand how
this have ever worked (must have coded it late late overtime...).

Looks like the /proc/$PID/exe always point to busybox not to the app
link, which means there is no way to tell the exec name without using
cmdline.

Why did this work when I tested it? I rember I did. Does different
kernels hadle this differently?

I guess r16047 could be dropped (and maybe reverted in trunk) unless
someone can find out that /proc/pid/exe can point to another link.

> Rob
> --
> "Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
> when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery