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 -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
