Subject: Re: bin/4167: WIBNI sh supported file/command/etc completion?
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/27/1997 21:05:21
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> OTOH, WTF do we need to have both /bin/sh *and* a /bin/sh with line
> editing, job control, etc? Are the semantics really that different?
The semantics, as far as shell scripts go, are no different at all.
They're *exactly* the same. Perfect compatability with the Bourne
shell is just what I'm looking for in my interactive shell, too. :-)
I have no objecting to sticking the job control and libedit stuff
inside `#ifdef SMALL ... #endif' statements. So long as we do that
for ftp and a few other other programs used on install and rescue
disks, we'll leave out libedit entirely. It has to be left out for
all programs, though, otherwise it will sneak in to the crunched
binaries, and they'll be no savings at all.
Which reminds me: perhaps, for those systems with small root
partitions that can't be easily upgraded, we should support a
crunched binary of all of /bin and /sbin.
Curt Sampson email@example.com Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc. `And malt does more than Milton can
Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 To justify God's ways to man.'