On Tuesday 22 May 2007 11:19, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> 2007/5/21, Denis Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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
>
> Could you send the sizes of ash and msh, please?
These are sizes of full-blowh shells:
# size shell/*.o
text data bss dec hex filename
46947 204 1775 48926 bf1e shell/ash.o
275 0 0 275 113 shell/cttyhack.o
15047 0 0 15047 3ac7 shell/hush.o
7390 0 56 7446 1d16 shell/lash.o
23437 64 355 23856 5d30 shell/msh.o
hush with everything configured off (except command prompt)
will weigh at 10k and functionally is similar to lash.
Sans numerous bugs in lash:
# ./busybox lash
/.1/usr/srcdevel/bbox/fix/busybox.t4 # >testfile
/.1/usr/srcdevel/bbox/fix/busybox.t4 # cat testfile
cat: cannot open 'testfile': No such file or directory
> It could make sense to remove hush if msh is a little bigger than
> hush and maintain lash in order to have a very very small shell for
> very tiny devices.
This will leave me without shell which is small enough to be understndable
by mere mortals yet capable of some advanced stuff (like if/then).
Since msh and ash are too complex for my tiny brain and also too important
to risk breakage, I will need to work on lash then, effectively
evolving it into hush again. What's the point?
IOW: hush *is* basically a "fixed and extended lash" already.
That's why I proposing removing lash, not hush.
--
vda
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
