Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b <at> web.de> writes: > Add 2 more if dash and mksh build static flavours too. posh, ksh93,
mksh already builds a static flavour ;-) It’s just not an mksh-static separate binary package because waldi, who kindly sponsored my first several uploads, taught me that binary packages are a costly resource. I intended /bin/mksh-static to be used by initramfs-tools in place of the ash or busybox-sh they use (maybe pick it up automatically once mksh is installed, like it does with busybox if it’s installed). No idea whether approaching them would not be shot down either… plus it’d add a few dozen KiB (more on hurd/kfreebsd due to lack of non- eglibc C libraries there) to the already huge initrd… but you’d get a modern, robust shell, tab completion, the works. Nowadays I mostly run with /bin/sh@ -> mksh-static (started on the m68k systems where there’s noticeable benefit, doing it everywhere). Sven Joachim dixit: > On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Proposed solution: > I'm afraid your plan as outlined is not going to work. I’d be delighted if you can explain which part(s) aren’t, and even more if you have a (general) idea how to fix it? We tried several scenarios and did a lot of brainstorming, but in the end it turns out there’s few people who fully understand even one of the subsystems involved… Please keep at least mksh@p.d.o in the loop, eMail wise (can’t talk about the others, but I guess Cc’ing the package address of the shells involved would be sensible). Thanks, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130511t182813-...@post.gmane.org
