[osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox

2007-03-15 Thread Darren J Moffat
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:45 am, Roland Mainz wrote: Still embedded applications should have a small(-er) runtime footprint. Smaller is (usually) better (and as I said we're going to do more work on the footprint part in ksh93 after the initial putback). I agree, I am jus

Re: [osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox

2007-03-14 Thread Roland Mainz
Bruno Jargot wrote: > On 3/7/07, Garrett D'Amore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bruno Jargot wrote: > > > How does BusyBox helps you to reduce the size of the current > > > footprint? Its an All-in-One solution where lots of code gets shared > > > between commands. And a ksh93-based BusyBox require

Re: [osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox (was: Re: perl in Solaris (was Re: Re:

2007-03-08 Thread Joerg Schilling
"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I gather BusyBox is intended for use in embedded distributions only, > not "normal" ones constrained by backwards compatibility. In those > situations, it would replace a bunch of commands. > > I would imagine the idea would be to reimplement it

[osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox (was: Re: perl in Solaris (was Re: Re:

2007-03-07 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
I gather BusyBox is intended for use in embedded distributions only, not "normal" ones constrained by backwards compatibility. In those situations, it would replace a bunch of commands. I would imagine the idea would be to reimplement it as an alternative libcmd for use with ksh93, in an environm

Re: [osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox

2007-03-07 Thread Shawn Walker
BusyBox incorporated the debian ash shell 0.3.8-5 with release 0.52 (07/2001) for the standalone shell option. I do not know what the built-in shell is based off, but I do know it is not POSIX compliant. On 08/03/07, Bruno Jargot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Huh? I think its a stripped down bash.

[osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox

2007-03-07 Thread Bruno Jargot
Huh? I think its a stripped down bash. The shell in BusyBox has all the bash features, including high memory consumption. Bruno On 3/7/07, Garrett D'Amore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruno Jargot wrote: > How does BusyBox helps you to reduce the size of the current > footprint? Its an All-in-One

[osol-code] Re: ksh93 busybox

2007-03-07 Thread Garrett D'Amore
Bruno Jargot wrote: > How does BusyBox helps you to reduce the size of the current > footprint? Its an All-in-One solution where lots of code gets shared > between commands. And a ksh93-based BusyBox requires even less > footprint because ksh93 uses less memory than bash. Huh. BusyBox is orthogon