[OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] Dynamic common utilities

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Jack Mitchell <ml at communistcode.co.uk> wrote:
> is 'anybox' a good name for the virtual provider? What happens if we have a
> new suite of core utility replacements without box in the name, I assume it
> will be a nightmare to retroactivly change the name so we should probably
> come up with a more generic one now. virtual/core-utils, virtual/base-utils?

I think thats a fair point. I think virtual/busybox could be another
option but it might confuse some people seeing the word busybox
virtual/core-utilities will make it sufficiently not confuse with coreutils.