Frank Shute wrote: > 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] >
Such differences can as well happen due to different CPUTYPE settings. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"