Does replacing busybox with coreutils make sense?

Development Feature Requests
1

There are many limitations with busybox utilties, in fact searching for “busybox” against this forum gives a history of encountered limitations. Basic system setup is affected by it, addon developers must be aware of busybox, linux newbies will encounter hard to diagnost issues with it. Configuring a perfect TVbox system for yourself takes a lot of tinkering in console, and there busybox limitations rises every moment. Like broken terminfo.

TV boxes are pretty powerful devices with gigabytes of free space on flash. And many uses CoreElec installation on sdcard/usb flash. So space is not a problem. RAM size too.

So I wonder is busybox actually better solution for CoreElec than regular coreutils.

2

It fits to the project.
Sure, it has limitations but it does it’s job.

Btw: You could also install docker and use tools from there.

3

Note coreutils has for a long time supported a similar single binary build mode to busybox, selectable at build time with ./configure --enable-single-binary=symlinks.

4

And what is the size of this coreutils binary?
The point is not to have just one binary and symbolic links but to have small binary (or small set of utils).