Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Jul 1999 00:28:13 -0400
To:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Just say *no* to ash?
Message-ID:	<19990704002813.A6462@cygnus.com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.3i

I've just compiled bash with --enable-minimal-config which is supposed to
produce a /bin/sh-like version of bash.  It's about 2.2 times the size of
ash when finished.

While I like the thought of using a small, fast shell for configures I'm
wondering if this is ever going to buy us as much as it loses in lack of
compatibility with a "standard".  And, we seem to be constantly fixing
bugs in ash, as well.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether ash should go?

-- 
cgf AT cygnus DOT com
http://www.cygnus.com/

- Raw text -