exporting functions in ash

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Mon Jan 9 17:47:33 PST 2006

On Monday 09 January 2006 11:37, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > So maybe you should try to think outside the box?
> > Is exporting functions really necessary in your script?
>   A bash 3.0.16 compiled stay between 616Kb and 667Kb.
>   I need using functions in my scripts, but I could be avoided using
> instead functions shell scripts but everything get slower.
>   In my case I prefer to cope with bash and 700Kb more than to many
> shell scripts.
>   Do you think it could be interesting for bb have a ash+ with export
> functions capability?

In 1.2 I'm doing a single scalable busybox shell to replace lash, hush, msh, 
and ash.  If I can ever get 1.1 shipped!  (Wrestling with it now...)

In the long run, I believe busybox having "ports of" non-busybox applications 
is fundamentally a bad idea.  Either the non-busybox version is good enough 
to use standalone or we should just have our own version that is optimized 
for size from the ground up, makes full use of libbb, and so on.  I'd like to 
replace all outside "ports" with real busybox applets, but it's a bit down 
the todo list...

>   Cheers,

Steve Ballmer: Innovation!  Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

More information about the busybox mailing list