"I. Szczesniak" wrote: > On 6/23/09, James Carlson <carlsonj at workingcode.com> wrote: > > Cedric Blancher writes: > > > On 21/06/2009, James Carlson <carlsonj at workingcode.com> wrote: > > > > If anything, moving bits out of *both* SUNWesu and SUNWcsu and into a > > > > clearer-headed "SUNWksh93" (or some such) would make more sense. > > > > > > Which sense does it make to have a separate package which makes a > > > machine unbootable if you pkgrm it? > > > > First of all, I'd dispute the "unbootable" assertion. It might well > > be perfectly reasonable for someone creating an appliance out of > > OpenSolaris software to create a system that doesn't have ksh93. > > Perhaps such a system only has bash! > > Arguably a (Linux) appliance and embedded system would use the shell > implementation from busybox.net instead of bash. bash uses too much > memory for hardware with 16 or 32MB.
Erm... this depends a bit on code size and kernel tuneables (e.g. |PATH_MAX|, |ARG_MAX|, stack size etc. etc. all shrinked a bit to match the needs of the embedded environment), too. bash3 on m68k consumes a lot less space (e.g. |mmap()|'ed code) than SPARC and therefore reduces the memory required. AFAIK bash3 should easily run on a m68k or ARM/thumb system with 32MB main memory and it may even be possible to run bash3 on such architectures with 16MB (but it will get very tight then... that was the reason why the "all-in-one binary"-concept of "busybox" was originally invented...). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
