On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 07:43:39PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote: > > > 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). > >wasn't rob working on a new shell? did he make it available >anywhere? i only ask because it might be at least as capable as >lash at this point.
see shells/bbsh.c Will need an indent and could use the patch that i sent to the list ages ago to make it a bit smaller and fix a glitch or two. Ideally, hush should be tweaked to allow for just the very, very basic duty of a shell, with if/else, case, etc being config options, at least from my POV. Once this is done, rm bbsh and lash, i suppose. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
