Bash shell support?

Rich Felker dalias at aerifal.cx
Tue Aug 29 14:17:52 UTC 2006


On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:00:18AM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 10:49, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:39:15AM +0530, Riaz Rahaman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have been using Busy box version 1.1.2 and in that there was no support
> > > for bash shell, but in version 1.2.1 when I do a make menuconfig I find in
> > > the shells there is something called bourne shell options, but in setting of
> > > default shell I dont find Bash?
> > 
> > Bourne shell does not mean bash. Bash is a highly bloated, extended
> > implementation of the standard Bourne shell, which does not even quite
> > comply with the standard. In practice ash will probably do everything
> > you want.
> 
> Trying to use ash on a full-blown desktop machine was a disaster
> for me. Too buggy.

Could you explain what broke? It works perfectly fine for me.

> If we ever want to use bbox shell on desktop, we need
> to be mostly bash-compatible.

I strongly doubt this, unless you mean supporting users' broken
scripts full of bashisms. Scripts included with applications are
either portable or use minimal (easy to emulate if you care but I'd
rather catch the bugs) bashisms. Before ash I'd been using bash 1.x
for the past few years.

Rich




More information about the busybox mailing list