in my opinion we should use the normal gnu stuff for the basic stuff. coreutils and so on. this would need more diskspace, but the full functionality would be there.
ACK. Makes sense. But I'd still think, that it would be a good idea to compile bb with all the options - reason: bb can then be used as a rescue system.
i want to use busybox for stuff that is really ok where only senseless options are missing. in fact i want to use busybox to implement some additional and usefull stuff like etherwake, dnsd and so on.
these commands for example are missing.
True. dnsd is missing. I don't need it
My LS2 is not going to be a DNS server; my WLAN router does that. And because I don't like enabling "server options" when they are not needed, I didn't enable this. But I can of course enable it.
What about telnetd? IMO, this might make sense, as this could do away the need to install another package to provide a telnet server (like utelnet).
but i was in the same position....i have no clue which are needed as full versions and which are not.
Yep. It's sort of a "strategic decision". For example, should bb also provide /sbin/init? If so, would it be used? It might make sense to have bb provide init, because this way, yet another package can be dumped. Or e2fsck. Or. or. or...
...is cpio working with the newer busybox?
No. bb still only provides a "extract-only" cpio. The bb cpio cannot be used to create cpio archives.