Re: di: seperate preperation and installation phases
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 06:41:46PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Thierry Laronde wrote:
> >
> > Yep. There are several ideas in FreeBSD that I do like [I don't know if you
> > remember but last year, there was a thread about the need for a "static
> > shell" for recovery --- sash ; I have seen that sash is as big as a static
> > ash without all the functionnalities of ash; and you know what ? In FreeBSD, the
> > standard shell is ash, and is statically compiled...]
> >
> Busybox's (lash) shell has improved greatly in the last few months, and
> is perfectly fine for users, i like it better than ash, at least you can
> call up you previous commands which you couldnt do with ash last time i
> used it.
There is an history buffer too in ash, but it is not compiled by default. I
do think that BB is great for all of that, but at the moment I need mainly
scripts. I will see if I'm able to compile ash against uClibc (somebody
tried that and succeeded ?).
--
Thierry LARONDE, Centre de Ressources Informatiques, Archamps - France
http://www.cri74.org
PingOO, serveur de com sur distribution GNU/Linux: http://www.pingoo.org
Reply to: