Quoth Michael Schnell: > sash does not support scripts ? That does not seem very useful. > Do you know a document that explains what shells provide which > capabilities ?
Looking at the docs for each shell is how I did it. Note that what I said is slightly misleading -- you can write "scripts" and run them in sash, but it does not support input/output redirection nor parameters, which limits their usefulness significantly. I usually use busybox msh, since that does support all of that, but it has less integrated commands so you need more in your bindir. But yes, those can also be busybox commands if you like. > Is sash a (or the only) shell that does not need link files (and thus > reloading of the "busybox" executable) when calling a command ? I think you have completely the wrong end of the stick there. Sash is unrelated to busybox and doesn't get any magical benefit from things compiled into busybox. What it does have going for it is simplified functionality of a lot of bintools built directly into it, so they're internal commands rather than external ones. > Is it a real problem to use (e.g.) bash in busybox ? Bash requires an MMU, last time I checked (because it requires full glibc, which requires an MMU). And again it's unrelated to busybox. _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by [email protected] To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
