On Monday 24 March 2008 23:18, Paul Fox wrote: > > > What is the goal for ash? That I don't know. > > > > From the practical point-of-view, bbox need standard-compliant shell. > > ash is (trying to be) such a shell. (Other two shells are far behind, > > but they are much smaller, and work on NOMMU!) > > > > Above standard-compliance, bbox needs a shell which emulates bash. > > This is purely from practucal point-of-view: most Linux installations use > > bash as the primary shell => most scripts are written for bash > > (when they use non-standard bash-isms). > > ubuntu has shown very successfully that /bin/sh _not_ be bash, so i > think it's very possible to design most systems (esp. embedded) > not to need those features.
Ubuntu, basically, took the brunt of the effort to make most package maintainers to stop using bashisms. Which is no small task. I am grateful. > > Trivial bashism example: "function" keyword. > > exactly. trivial. delete it. :-) > > > Bashisms in ash can be guarded by ENABLE_FEATURE_BASH_COMPAT, > > in order to make standard lawyer-esque people happier. > > if you're worried (and i know you are) that ash is already too big > and complicated and bug-ridden, then i think we'd be well-served Yes, sans "bug-ridden". I do not feel that ash is particularly buggy, I think that it is too easy to MAKE it much more buggy by careless changes because of its complexity. > by limiting its feature set. change "can" to "must" and i'll be > happier. I think that it's best to not dictate people what they want. I want to avoid policy decisions like "ash will not implement anything more than standard demands!". It's more like "if you unset ASH_BASH_COMPAT, ash will lose support for most non-standard bash extensions, and will be smaller". -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
