I'm going out now. I may be some time.

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 01 October 2006 1:03 pm, walter harms wrote:
> I thing bb on desktop is a cool goal but i would espect a better shell.

On Sunday 01 October 2006 4:45 pm, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>   At this time I think the biggest lack of bb is about shell 
> compatibility with bash.

I stopped working on that problem on September 24:

On Sunday 24 September 2006 5:30 am, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> You don't seem to want to collaborate with anybody wrt bbsh.

On Sunday 24 September 2006 2:18 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> Not everyone will use that currently non-existing so called "bbsh".
> Don't forget the users that will run any other non-busybox provided
> shell and still want to use busybox's coreutils or console-utils
> replacements.
> 
> The mythical bbsh may be (still don't see why it is concerned about it,
> but i know nothing about shells) a user of it, just like it may become
> (currently is not) a user of bb_echo, but fact is that it ATM is not.

I deeply regret checking any of bbsh into the tree, thereby opening it to 
criticism before it was remotely finished.  I was trying very hard to avoid 
adding a fifth incompatible shell to BusyBox, but I failed.  Feel free to 
yank what's there, it's totally useless.

If you ask me for advice (which you didn't), at this point I'd recommend 
cleaning up ash.  Just because I wasn't willing to do so doesn't mean it 
isn't the most functional shell currently in the tree.

I should stop posting now, and go back to my book.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.