> rants: > > why are we using ash? is none of the busybox shells useable?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but remember busybox didn't include ash when LRP was first created. Also, when I looked at replacing the stand-along ash with the busybox version of ash, it looked like it would make it more complex to swap-out to alternate shells (ie bash, which I run on all my CD based firewalls). Finally, none of the busybox shells other than ash are suitable for LEAF, which relies *HEAVILY* on a working, fairly full-featured shell...compiling ash into busybox saves some space, but not a vast amount, so it didn't seem worth the potential headaches for me when building Dachstein. If I was starting on a completely new disto, however, I'd probably use BB ash. > why GNU sed? Because BusyBox sed is pretty broken when running complex scripts, sed is pretty small, and sed features are used almost as much as shell-script in LEAF/LRP systems, and once again, busybox sed wasn't around (at least in a usable form) when most of the current distributions were created. If your question was "why sed, instead of awk, grep, or whatever", the answer is that with full GNU sed and a functional shell, you can implement most of the behavior of other commands, if required, and sed is the smallest utility that fits the bill in that regard (yes, awk would be nicer, but it's many times larger than sed). Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
