Bash shell support?

Bernhard Fischer rep.nop at aon.at
Mon Aug 28 18:34:56 UTC 2006


On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:29:55PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:11:57PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On Monday 28 August 2006 7:58 am, Juergen Hennerich wrote:
>> > What I (also) tried to say was, that you should try to put some priority 
>> > to also have code that could be (more or less) easily understood and 
>> > extended. IMHO this is more important than trying to squeeze the last 
>> > savable byte out of the code.
>> 
>> At this point my priority is carving out a chunk of time/energy to get a 
>> working version I can check in.  But if it's not as small as lash when it's 
>> acting as a lash replacement (and can this actually _replace_ lash), it 
>> doesn't go in.  I'm not having _five_ shells in busybox.  Not happening.
>> 
>> And lash is the hard one.  It's the cockroach of command shells: small, 
>> simple, obviously pathetic, and extremely well adapted to its niche...
>
>Even if you can't beat lash in efficiency, you could commit bbsh as
>long as it has the functionality of at least one other shell and
>better size, and remove that one (or more) other shell(s) when you
>commit bbsh. Then there would still be at most 4 shells and possibly
>only 2 shells, which is worse than just one shell but better than 5..
>:)

Agreed, 'cept that I'd commit it along the other 4, for the moment.
Let's just start with a basic (even non-working) prototype, i'd say.
Adding that certainly doesn't mean that we should drop all of the
"legacy" shells we currently have nor to default to it. Still, let's
at least start.



More information about the busybox mailing list