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