[BusyBox] Ash *surprises*
Vladimir N. Oleynik
dzo at simtreas.ru
Fri Aug 10 07:53:21 UTC 2001
David,
> I replaced a modified standalone ash with busybox ash; it was worth it.
> However, it created quite a few problems, and many surprises. There's a
> few bugs, too.
>
> Here's a list (with comparisons)
>
> 1. read -p silently ignored (previously worked)
Now we quick correct it.
1) find readcmd()
2) change putpromt to out2str and remove flushall (O, size optimization!)
> 2. getopts removed; does not exist in busybox ash
Hmm, see comment in ash.c. Not removed.
> 3. echo removed and now external
> 4. test removed and now external
I think, that it is reasonable for a policy busybox.
> 5. sh -x does not work
> 6. IFS="," ; set -- $FOO ...where FOO="a, b, c, d" acts differently:
> ash: returns: $1=a $2=b $3=c $4=d
> bb ash: returns: $1=" a" $2=" b" $3=" c" $4=" d"
> ...setting IFS to ", " restores the desired behavior.
This not quick correct...
> One of the problems I had with echo and test being external was that I
> set PATH=/bin:/sbin at one point; however, echo and test are in
> /usr/bin; thus all of echo and [ failed miserably.
Do not make this ;-)
Unix must have /bin/echo /bin/test (or (sym)links)
> Despite failing the "principle of least surprise" this switch has been
> of GREAT benefit to my distribution; it's meant being able to split GNU
> libc to a separate archive, which means the switch to a new GNU glibc
> only requires a new archive, AND it shrunk the main root filesystem
> archive by almost 500k!
Hmm, For a long time it was time so to make! ;))
--w
vodz
More information about the busybox
mailing list