View Single Post
Posts: 1,808 | Thanked: 4,272 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Germany
#1346
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
I beg to differ. IMO, the best solution would be to have backupmenu as modular set of scripts, invoked by user from shell (as early as possible, preferably the way like Mentalist's recovery shell does it, as posted a page or two back). This way, if anything fails, user have:

a) full log of what's going on
b) we don't need to rely on text2screen or any other mumbo-jumbo
c) we don"t need to be kept in stone age by not upgrading busybox (stupid, as bugs and security fixes are important).
d) fixing every "module" (script) in case of changes is trivial.

I really don't like monolithic pieces of code (hello, systemd) that makes me feel like I'm using windows 8.5, and not fixing bugs/updating such critical component as busybox is not acceptable.

/Estel
OK. But then what you want is a different program/system. Backupmenu, as it is now, should really include everything it needs (which is not so much), at least the pieces that are not guaranteed to be always the same (/bin/sh, or even busybox).

I'm all for an enhanced recovery shell, i.e. the normal recovery shell with a number of scripts to make the backupmenu functionality easy to use, or at least fast (i.e. avoiding typing long commands on the shell).
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to reinob For This Useful Post: