"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 as an alternative
> libcmd for use with ksh93, in an environment where ksh93 was the only
> shell. In principle, that could reduce the entire set of separate interactive
> commands needed in such a restricted environment to one.
If you do this for embedded systems, ksh93 is really big.
If you have shared libs on the target platform, you do not win anything.
If you don't have shared libs, it makes sense to use the Bourne shell.
If you like to reduce the size without putting things into the shell,
you may do what Sun did with sunview binaries in SunOS-3.5 (one main that
calls different sub-main() programs from av[0]. This prevens you from being
forced to make the code of normal programs reentrant.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
