No brace expansion for ash?

Davide louigi600 at yahoo.it
Mon Jul 11 08:26:13 UTC 2011


People that do embedded generally have other concerns like porting porting a bootloader for the board they are using. Mending some scripts so that they work with the shell they chose to use with busybox is not really a concern 
> Da: Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com>
> Oggetto: Re: No brace expansion for ash?
> A: "Michael D. Setzer II" <mikes at kuentos.guam.net>
> Cc: busybox at busybox.net
> Data: Lunedì 11 luglio 2011, 10:16
> On 11 July 2011 08:08, Michael D.
> Setzer II <mikes at kuentos.guam.net>
> wrote:
> > On 11 Jul 2011 at 8:47, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >> >>  Bashisms are arguably Linux-specific
> extensions to Single Unix, don't
> >> >> you think ? ;)
> >> > no, not even close.  i dont know why people
> think "bash == Linux", but
> >> > it doesnt.  it is actively used on many many
> more systems than just
> >> > Linux, and i guess i need to point out the
> fact that bash is far older
> >> > than Linux.
> >>
> >>  Okay, then replace "Linux-specific" with
> "GNU-specific"; as far as I know,
> >> GNU is still not Unix, *especially in embedded
> environments that BusyBox
> >> is targetting*, and bash is still not the
> reference sh implementation.
> >> But you have a point.
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Laurent
> >
> > As an user, I've got concerns with how scripts work in
> shells. I've
> > used checkbashism to try and elimanate them, but don't
> know if it
> > finds all of them. I've even run into an issue where
> bash worked
> > with a for loop, but after upgrading to a newer
> version it no longer
> > worked.
> >
> > I've got a project that I took over way back in 2004,
> and it used
> > busybox for most things, but did included the full
> bash to run
> > scripts? It might work with a busybox shell, but going
> thru a 2000+
> > line script to check for any issues has prompted me to
> just leave
> > the 877480 byte bash as part of the iso image.
> >
> > Is there a program that can fully check scripts for
> bashisms or
> > other problems.
> >
> 
> I don't see how adding bashisms one-by-one to ash is going
> to help anyone.
> 
> If you want to run a script under ash, you should write it
> properly
> and test it under ash -- which should be faithful enough to
> the sh
> spec not to tolerate bashisms.
> 
> If you have a script that is full of bashisms, the solution
> is to run
> it under the intended interpreter: bash.
> 
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 


More information about the busybox mailing list