Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:22:38 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@gmail.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <20190126102238.3b5e0a80@ernst.home> In-Reply-To: <20190125210833.ltnvsxbnlkc6njaw@ivaldir.net> References: <20190125165751.kpcjjncmf7j7maxd@ivaldir.net> <201901251936.x0PJaepi089796@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20190125210833.ltnvsxbnlkc6njaw@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 22:08:33 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:36:40AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm > > > And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step) > > > > > > Why: > > > 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the > > > expectation are bigger > > It is more than twice the size of our current /bin/sh, and giving up > > 200k on the nano/tiny/wifi BSD is hard to justify. 400k is near the > > size of tcsh. > > > To be fair here: > mksh is 331k on my amd64 machine > /bin/sh is 165k > > mksh only depends on libc > /bin/sh depends on libc + libedit which adds an additional 231k to the battle. > > If now we are comparing to the actual root shell: > csh is 419k on the same machine and it depends on libncursesw and libcrypt > How large is a statically linked mksh? /rescue/sh is 8.5MB. Amazingly, that's four times larger than a statically linked bash. If mksh is supposed to be the default, then it might make sense to have a statically linked binary under /rescue. -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190126102238.3b5e0a80>