deprecating msh in favor of hush
Denys Vlasenko
vda.linux at googlemail.com
Sat Mar 28 21:28:16 UTC 2009
On Saturday 28 March 2009 21:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive gone through msh and hush a bit and did a comparison ... here's what msh
> provides but hush does not in latest trunk:
>
> - login
> - newgrp
> these make me go "wtf are these in the shell?"
It's "design by commitee" for you :) ignore those.
(hmm does bash do them?...)
> - readonly
> not really important seeing as hush doesnt provide a way to declare read only
> variables. afaict, POSIX doesnt require this, so i say we chalk it up as
> "bashism that'd maybe be nice to have at some point" and see if anyone
> actually complains.
Yep.
> - times
> a bashism that looks pretty useless to me and isnt in POSIX. let it die.
We can implement it as needed.
> - trap
> this is about the only thing that hush needs, but we already know that.
Here documents, robust `cmd`, (cmd;cmd) and cmd & in NOMMU, functions
(because they are easyish to implement when (cmd;cmd) is done).
> considering all these things, i say we start the process of deprecating msh.
> for now, that means simply adding "(deprecated)" to its description in kconfig
> and telling people to migrate to hush.
Well, just adding "(deprecated)" won't kill anyone. I imagine people
will complain a bit as long as there is anything in msh which
does not work in hush. We can live with that.
> any qualms with this ? that'd get us down to two shells (ash and hush) and
> i'm fine with letting those two live. ash doesnt look like it'd be able to
> scale down to no-mmu anyways...
Yes, trimming ash down is way harder tha bloati^Wimproving hush.
--
vda
More information about the busybox
mailing list