On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 at 17:35, tito <farmat...@tiscali.it> wrote: [...]
> Dosen't this open a compatibility nightmare of different behaviors between > shells, > missing builtins, expected bashisms...... I wish not to hit this key but you did, so... I am glad to remember that bashism was always a hot topic and the last time it hit this m-list wss, as far as I can remember, when I submitted a patchset that was partially accepted. Not completely because "bashism" has been considered overkilling for the busybox ash purpose -- whatever small was the footprint increasing -- including those exceptions handling that would have provided senior shell-script developers an advanced debug system as bash can offer. The patches not accepted and/or not reviewed, still exist in a sub-folder of an embedded system PoC related to TinyCore. Just in case someone wishes to dig deep, I am saving their time. https://github.com/robang74/tinycore-editor/tree/main/busybox/patches Before entering into judgemental mode, I suggest to take a look to the description "TinyCore Editor - Building suite for a non-certifiable-by-design PoC Linux embedded system - Teaching tool about dealing with legacy systems" because a PoC is a PoC as long as it cannot be a product, otherwise it is a product into its early stage of developing but as Microsoft teaches, as long as something run and people use it, then it is a commercial product! LOL Best regards, R- _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
