lua [ was: Bash shell support? ]

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 28 August 2006 6:28 am, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> Why on earth do we want any scripting _in_ busybox?

You mean like lash, msh, hush, ash, and bbsh?

> AFAIR, we don't want (resp. didn't want until recently) these in busybox
> -) filesystem utilities (bad example as there currently is a big bloated
>    batch in there -- e2fsprogs -- that noone cares to shrink nor really
>    maintain)

Actually I'm about 1/2 way through a from-scratch mke2fs rewrite.  
Unfortunately, work had a large project move a deadline up a week and a half 
ago, and it became a big rush project thingy.  I'm a couple days away from 
having a prototype to hand to them, at which point I'm going to ask for the 
tuesday/thursday telecommunting thing back so I have a clear dividing line 
that says "this is BusyBox time".

I meant to catch up this weekend by my Fiancee draged me out to be social 
instead.  (I was previously unaware that you could combine DDR and Karaoke, 
nor did I know that my most effective Super Smash Bros character 
was "Princess Peach".  I positively _sucked_ with Pikachu...)

> -) compilers (i'd immediately put in tcc, because it is relatively small
>    -- <100k -- and relatively useful, as in somewhat useable C89 support)

I'd like BusyBox to build with tcc.  (I subscribed to the tcc mailing list but 
have yet to get a message on it.)  If I had more time I'd try to get that to 
be a better gcc replacement (for starters, building the kernel...)

Seems a bit stalled now that Fabrice has his hands full with qemu...

> One project that may be of real use is to export a zlib compatible
> interface, as mentioned before, but i didn't yet see any proposal for
> this one.

If someone would like to do this, I'm all for it.  (It's probably best if 
libbb.so did this.  When I cycle back around to working on scripts/individual 
again, I need to not just fix the rest of the apps to build right but add 
libbb.so support.)

Oh, a recent discussion on linux-kernel suggested that the "build at once" 
mode should be a separate target (which seems obvious in retrospect), and I 
think possibly libbb.so should also be a separate target.

Possibly we should have a number of targets:

busybox (default)
busybox-static
busybox-shared (with libbb.so automatically built).

Maybe these are .dummy targets, or maybe actual executable names.

I'm holding off on poking at the build system until Denis finishes up his port 
of the current linux-kernel/klibc stuff to BusyBox.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.