Bash shell support?

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Mon Aug 28 19:11:55 UTC 2006


On Monday 28 August 2006 2:34 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> 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.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

*ahem*  No, but when I get time to work on it again (haven't in a couple 
weeks) I'll try to post something to the list.  Right now I haven't got 
anything working to demonstrate.  (Thrown out a couple false starts, though, 
and definitely know what _bits_ of it should look like...)

> 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.

It's not going into the tree until I can drop a shell, although that might be 
hush (which nobody really uses).

Hush is a shell that was written with the intent to unify the other three 
shells, but couldn't be as small as lash and thus stalled.  I see this is a 
valuable learning experience.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list