On Tuesday 22 May 2007, 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? > > 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.
msh has many issues with it, but unfortunately it's the only one that works on no-MMU right now ;( but to the original question, if hush could be made more controllable in terms of size, i see no other reason to keep lash around ... -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
