On 11 July 2011 09:48, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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
>
> Please stop misunderstanding my needs and misrepresenting my position
> (voluntarily or not), and read my first message again.
>
> I am not opposed to the additions of bashisms to hush, or even ash for
> that matter.
> All I am saying is that if hush's objective is to emulate bash and not
> sh, *this should be made abundantly clear and documented*. People should
> know exactly what they are getting when they build hush.
>
Really, this is what I would be happy with too. I have no problem with
bashisms in hush -- it's a 'Busybox-ism'. The problem I have is having
an ash that doesn't behave like an ash, thus encouraging people to
write scripts like:
cat <<EOF
#!/bin/sh
mkdir {build src bluurgh}
cd build || echo "WHY ISN'T SH BASH???"
EOF
then testing them with ash, it working fine and then being surprised
when it breaks for others.
Chris
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
