Erik Blomqvist wrote: > Hi, > > I hope this is the right mailing list for this question. If nothing else you > seem to be the right people to ask. > > Considering that dash and mawk are smaller and faster than bash and gawk I > was a bit surprised to find that LFS doesn't support them. Even Ubuntu, that > is a huge distribution by comparison, uses those packages because they > provide better performance. Considering that one of the reasons for building > your own linux system is to get better performance, it would make sense to > use the best performing packages. So why doesn't LFS use or at least support > these packages? > > I'm specifically interested in knowing if there are any technical reasons > for not supporting these packages, e.g. package x doesn't work with > dash/mawk. If it's just for historical reasons, maybe it's time to > reconsider?
The reason dash and mawk are smaller and faster is because they omit some functionality. In the age of multi TB disks and Multi GHz prococessors, how much difference does a 'lite' version make? My system boots in 8 seconds. How much time will I save? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
