On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:48, Laurent Bercot 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
hush's objective is to be small & useful. minimum functionality available is POSIX, but adding bash extensions is generally fine. > *this should be made abundantly clear and documented*. People should > know exactly what they are getting when they build hush. i'm guessing you've never actually built hush. it is pretty damn clear what features you get as you have to select them one-by-one in the config system. -mike _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
