On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:16, Chris Rees wrote: > I don't see how adding bashisms one-by-one to ash is going to help anyone.
i guess you've never worked with actual customers doing embedded projects > If you want to run a script under ash, you should write it properly > and test it under ash -- which should be faithful enough to the sh > spec not to tolerate bashisms. that's nice. your idealized view of the world (1) rarely happens and (2) requires extensive knowledge of the shell spec. fact is, most people dont know anything about this. they write some stuff cobbled together by what they found online and then test it on their desktop. then when it doesnt work on the board, they complain and time is wasted. > If you have a script that is full of bashisms, the solution is to run > it under the intended interpreter: bash. if *you* want to do that, then *you* can. but *your* opinion of the world does not get to dictate what optional code people get to add to busybox. this functionality is extremely useful to have in ash, and the trade off of using busybox+some extensions is a lot better than throwing full bash on there. -mike _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
