On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:38:07PM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: >Hi folks, > >I was working on busybox's shells a bit lately. > >Current situation is as follows: > >- ash is closest to be a replacement to bash, but it is the most > complex and big shell in busybox. >- msh also aims to be reasonable feature complete. >- hush and lash are "small" shells with many features absent, > and they also seem to have fair share of bugs. > >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. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
