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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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/