Re: [PATCH 2/3] Assume which and dirname is in PATH

[Joakim T. <joa...@tr...>]

Joshua Emele <je...@gm...> wrote on 2011/11/15 23:47:36:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm using a modified version buildroot (BR2_VERSION is "2009.05") that
> includes busybox-1.16.0. Here's where I see which and dirname:
>
> bash-3.2# find / -name which -exec ls -l {} \;
> lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     0               17 Nov 11  2011
> /usr/bin/which -> ../../bin/busybox
> bash-3.2# find / -name dirname -exec ls -l {} \;
> lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     0               17 Nov 11  2011
> /usr/bin/dirname -> ../../bin/busybox
>
> The location of the busybox binaries in your rootfs is largely
> determined by the configuration used when building. For example,
> looking at the busybox package I'm using, INSTALL_NO_USR will place
> binaries in /bin, instead of using /usr/bin:
>
> config INSTALL_NO_USR
>     bool "Don't use /usr"
>     default n
>     help
>       Disable use of /usr. Don't activate this option if you don't know
>       that you really want this behaviour.
>
> #if ENABLE_INSTALL_NO_USR
> # define _BB_DIR_USR_BIN _BB_DIR_BIN
> # define _BB_DIR_USR_SBIN _BB_DIR_SBIN
> #endif
>
> If you examine the .config file, Do you have INSTALL_NO_USR enabled?
> Here's what I have:
>
> busybox-1.16.0$ grep INSTALL_NO_USR .config
> # CONFIG_INSTALL_NO_USR is not set

I don't have CONFIG_INSTALL_NO_USR but the links got created long time
ago so see two possibilities here:
1) older busybox might have used /bin but later changed to /usr/bin
2) I somehow messed up the creation of which and dirname links
   and placed at the wrong place.

It comes down to: Does oprofile want to support misplaced links and/or busybox with
CONFIG_INSTALL_NO_USER?

 Jocke