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