On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:15:37 -0500
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To give a trivial example, I've attached a patch for
> > gen_initramfs_list.sh (untested) that should allow it to work for
> > busybox ash.
> >
> > By your argument, you could have #!/usr/bin/perl and expect it to
> > run your python script.
> 
> Have fun with your straw man, I'll be over here.

Straw man or not, my argument is still perfectly valid.
You can of course be wherever you like.

> > > In the meantime, the minimal self-bootstrapping environment is
> > > still seven packages, one of which is bash.
> >
> > So is GCC or are you imlying that busybox should have that also?
> 
> But the point is that Busybox does not provide a compiler.  If it
> _did_, that compiler should be good enough to not need to be replaced
> with another compiler in order to rebuild a Linux system under itself.

I wasn't aware that busybox was targeted as a build host, but whatever.
 
> Busybox _does_ provide a shell.  If it provides a shell, it should be
> a GOOD shell.  Busybox's shell is not currently good enough to
> operate in a development environment without being replaced.

I disagree - I use the busybox shell to great effect.
I also use it in a development environment with great success!
What's more, the Linux kernel builds and installs just fine - mainly as
I don't pretend that busybox has a bash shell when a script really
wants the bash shell.

> > > > If you want bash features then explicitly use bash. If you want
> > > > bash features in /bin/sh then get the The Open Group to adopt
> > > > them :)
> > >
> > > If you want to use Solaris, you know where it is.
> >
> > Eh? Solaris has nothing todo with this discussion.
> 
> Ok, I'll explain:
> 
> Busybox uses /proc.  Show me where /proc is standardized by the open
> group. Feel free to rip all uses of /proc out of your copy of busybox
> until such a time as you get The Open Group to adopt them.

Eh? /proc has nothing todo with writing shell scripts.
Please keep on topic and stop changing the subject.

> Busybox has never claimed to be a posix tool, it's always been a
> _Linux_ tool.

Linux is a kernel and makes no claim as to what kind of userland it
should run.

> > The Open Group Base Specifications are just that - where specified
> > it's an agreed way of working. sh is an agreed way of working, so
> > if sh is used it can expect to behave in the specified maner from
> > system to system.
> 
> Ok,do you need to remove support for -e from your copy of "echo" then?

What makes you think my copy of echo has that to start with? :)

> > > > I like the ability to use /bin/sh so my scripts work on default
> > > > base systems such as NetBSD where bash not available by default.
> > >
> > > You've used busybox on netbsd?  (Without a Linux compatability
> > > layer?) This is new...
> >
> > No, I've not used busybox on NetBSD, nor have I ever made such a
> > claim. However, my scripts (of which I have many) work with the
> > system provided /bin/sh which includes (but is not limited to)
> > NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD. They also work on the myriad of other
> > shells - bash, dash, busybox (ash), zsh. I've not tried others
> > personally, but people report success.
> 
> You can write to a subset of the available functionality, sure.  We
> should support that subset.  You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't
> support anything _beyond_ that subset, even if real-world scripts use
> those features and we already have config symbols concerning them.
> 
> Making your scripts portable to netbsd is not the same thing as
> saying busybox should restrict itself to providing only netbsd's
> default shell behavior.

No, no I'm not saying that at all.
If you want shell functionality only found in bash then explicitly
request bash (#!/bin/bash).
If you want shell functionality as mandated by POSIX and found in all
compliant shells then use /bin/sh.

If you want to put bash into busybox, go for it!
Just don't pretend that sh is bash.

Thanks

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

Reply via email to