Procps or coreutils

which one will be more complete or better?
I am not familiar with them but know that some apps are shared(?) between them?
like uptime that is inside busybox and coreutils and procps.
can some one exaplin this to me?
I cant find anything on net for this issue.

busybox = feature stripped/minified gnu-ish binary
coreutil = full gnu binary
procps = full-ish linux variant

could be wrong tho', no such thing as better... but from a purist perspective, if you have to add more than what busybox provides ( bear in mind this may break core stuff ) then coreutil aka gnu friendly is more "proper"

:raspberry:

"I hate that bloated, non-standards-compliant, GNU crap."

I routinely install the procps-ng tools, mainly for a full-featured ps and watch and occasionally pgrep. Never bothered to trim down the selections from default.

No "ill effects" seen, at least on master.

It pretty much comes down to preferences or personal biases.

1 Like

so I can ignore procps and install all i want from coreutils?
and they are more compatible with my desktop version?
because I have routinely seen that some scripts or command don't work on openwrt because the installed command on openwrt doesn't support (or have some mismatch) the parameters that work on standard pc linux.

Like @Jeff i also use procps variants... also for usleeps ... df -T...

alot of the coreutils created buildroot conflicts.... so I only go there post install... which is/was handled better...

Try them and see... my point above was more about getting sloppy and writing scripts to depend on such tools... when its really overkill, and portability suffers long term...

If you have space... and you need the tools go for it....

1 Like

space I have.
but I see in snapshot that procpc pacakge is again missing.(this happened before.)
so does installing coreutils mess with main processes and scripts of openwrt and I am ok with installing all the packages in coreutils?