On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
>
> > On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
> > >
> > > > On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
> > >
> > > [ snip ]
> > >
> > > > I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
> > > >
> > > > $ ls -l /bin/sh
> > > > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
>
> ~ $ ls -l /bin/sh
> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 111788 Oct 5 13:55 /bin/sh*
I can understand why the size of sh might be different. Different
patch levels. (Built almost 2 months apart).
>
>
> > > > $ ls -l /bin/ksh
> > > > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 681584 Oct 6 12:33 /bin/ksh
> > > >
> > > > How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)
> > >
> > > ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*
> > >
> >
> > pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash
> > about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?):
>
> ~ $ bash --version
> bash --version
> GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
> Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Same as mine:
$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
I'm not too sure why my bash is different in size. I guess it sucked
in slightly different code when built due to our base systems being the
2 months apart.
[snip]
--
Frank
Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
