RFC: remove lash?

Roberto A. Foglietta roberto.foglietta at gmail.com
Tue May 22 09:19:55 UTC 2007


2007/5/21, Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux at googlemail.com>:
> On Monday 21 May 2007 21:02, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> > >To have four shells in busybox is too much IMO.
> > >
> > >Since hush is based on lash, and seems to be a bit more
> > >advanced than lash, I propose removing lash altogether.
> > >
> > >For a few releases we can keep "lash" applet which\
> > >prints "DEPRECATED!" warning and starts hush_main.
> > >
> > >What do you think people? Especially lash users?
> >
> > I'd like to keep lash around (default it to off), just because it's the
> > smallest shell we have (isn't it?) and suffices for executing commands
> > (i.e. does what a shell is supposed to do).
> >
> > If you change hash so it can be configured down to just the basic
> > std::cin;exec(); loop without any fancy stuff, then i'm all for fading
> > lash out.
>
> I'm trying. hush had no features to turn on/off until recently,
> but now it has three, and biggest/smallest versions have
> the following sizes:
>
> # size hush.o hush_big.o
>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>   11775       0       0   11775    2dff hush.o
>   15328       0       0   15328    3be0 hush_big.o
>
> lash is still smaller:
>
> # size lash.o
>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>    7390       0      56    7446    1d16 lash.o

 Could you send the sizes of ash and msh, please?

 It could make sense to remove hush if msh is a little bigger than
hush and maintain lash in order to have a very very small shell for
very tiny devices.

 Cheers,
-- 
/roberto



More information about the busybox mailing list