On Thu, Mar 15, at 10:20 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > > +1. Patch looks good to me. I'm curious to hear about the dropping Ash
> > > part of the equation from others, but I think Dash could be added
> > > regardless.
> >
> > I don't have any objections to dropping ash for dash, but I think that
> > should be Randy's call.
>
> Right.
>
> > My biggest objection to {,d}ash is that it doesn't use readline. That
> > makes it infeasible (for me) to use interactively. Additionally, I like
> > the extra flexibility of the bash extensions for scripts.
>
> We already had this conversation, but...
>
> I never intend to use dash interactively. If I'm in a shell, I want
> the full glory.
Then just use zsh, with all the bell and whistles ( we call them
modules) - zsh even comes with a module (zed) that you can edit
files directly from the shell. Basic but works good for small files.
Try to use the Zshell. You will thank me later. :)
I will attach one ~/.zshrc and ~/.zprofile.
You need the latter if you are going to use it as login shell.
Remember you can place any environment variable in ~/.zshenv.
Any new instance of zsh will read ~/.zshrc and ~/.zshenv - only the login
shell will read the ~/.zprofile.
> So, using dash cut off nearly 8% on rc. Whether that's significant or
> not is up to you. I can attach the diff to /etc/rc.d/init.d/rc if
> anyone else wants to measure this on their system.
>
Please do so.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
