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
Date:	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:00:18 -0700
From:	Geoffrey Noer <noer AT cygnus DOT com>
To:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: Just say *no* to ash?
Message-ID:	<19990708140018.F17138@cygnus.com>
References:	<19990704002813 DOT A6462 AT cygnus DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To:	<19990704002813.A6462@cygnus.com>; from Chris Faylor on Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:28:13AM -0400

On Sun, Jul 04, 1999, Chris Faylor wrote:
>
> 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?

Hmmmm.  Well, Cygwin has sped up a bit so perhaps the discrepency
isn't as noticable.  When we changed to ash for configures, I think
the speed-up was well worth the additional maintenance of ash.  That
may still be the case, dunno.  I haven't compared them recently.

-- 
Geoffrey Noer		Email: noer AT cygnus DOT com
Cygnus Solutions

- Raw text -