Bash shell support?

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Fri Sep 1 21:42:04 UTC 2006


On Friday 01 September 2006 1:12 pm, Ian Oliver wrote:
> In article <200608281511.55273.rob at landley.net>, Rob Landley wrote:
> > It's not going into the tree until I can drop a shell, although that might 
be 
> > hush (which nobody really uses).
> 
> I use it but for bad reasons. :-)
> 
> lash is, err, well, lash!

Lash hasn't got "if", "while", or "for".

> ash refuses to build on uClinux

It frightens small children.  (And me.)

> msh builds but takes my box out when executed - might be easy to fix - I 
haven't 
> tried yet

It segfaults trying to run "dd" for me.  Haven't had a chance to track it down 
yet.

> hush works for scripts but not for command lines (the control console
> issue?) 

Dunno.  I didn't get any output from it at all when I ran it as pid 1 in an 
initramfs.  (Either running a script with "echo" in it, or running as an 
interactive command prompt.)

> So, I've ended up with lash as the login shell and hush as /bin/sh for
> scripts. 

That's one approach. :)

> You could always go nuclear and remove all the other shells as soon as you 
> commit bbsh.  That'll focus minds on testing and improving bbsh. :-)

Except that bbsh won't be feature complete for quite some time.  My first 
target to replace is lash, and doing so is actually a lot of work.  (It's 
somewhere between bonsai and haiku.  Miniatures are time consuming.)

> Ian

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list