On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 02:47, Laurent Bercot wrote: >>> Bashisms are arguably Linux-specific extensions to Single Unix, don't >>> you think ? ;) >> >> no, not even close. i dont know why people think "bash == Linux", but >> it doesnt. it is actively used on many many more systems than just >> Linux, and i guess i need to point out the fact that bash is far older >> than Linux. > > Okay, then replace "Linux-specific" with "GNU-specific"; as far as I know, > GNU is still not Unix, *especially in embedded environments that BusyBox > is targetting*, and bash is still not the reference sh implementation.
no one is saying bash is the reference sh implementation. in fact, if *you* want a minimal POSIX compliant shell out of busybox with no bash features, you can already do that today. but *your* needs are not the same as everyone else's, and the fact is, bash provides many invaluable extensions on top of POSIX. yes, they can all be accomplished in other ways with pure POSIX code, but often times the extra hassle makes no sense. if the resources are available, then enabling the extensions can save significantly on software development time. -mike _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
