[BusyBox] standalone ash and busybox ash

[Mike Voytovich]

Is anyone thinking about implementing a "fork-less" version of busybox ash
(one that uses vfork() instead)?  It looks like the minix shell (msh) is
presently the only shell in busybox that can be used with uClinux...

thanks,
-m.

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Andersen [mailto:andersen at lineo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:20 AM
To: Tom Cameron
Cc: 'n9ubh at callsign.net'; Busybox Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BusyBox] standalone ash and busybox ash


On Thu Aug 02, 2001 at 12:48:26PM -0400, Tom Cameron wrote:
> 	One of the MAJOR differences is size.  Also, in my opinion, there is
> no One ash.  ash has so many derivatives that it's hard to keep them all
> straight.  Additionally, it would appear that if you want to use _the_ ash
> (relatively speaking), you need to port it from BSD...which is what the
> Debian project has done (correct me if I'm wrong).

And it is from the debian ash package that busybox' ash is derived.

busybox ash is smaller, supports tab completion, supports operating
as a standalone shell, does not require pmake, and does not build and
execute any intermediate binaries during the build process.  Those
are the main highlights...

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--


_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox at busybox.net
http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox