Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:18:36 +0100 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at> Cc: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Further sh(1) plans Message-ID: <0B47D84F-23BE-4D05-AAFF-211CA6BB6BD4@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100620090019.GA1731@mole.fafoe.narf.at> References: <20100619113126.GB83874@stack.nl> <20100620090019.GA1731@mole.fafoe.narf.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 Jun 2010, at 10:00, Stefan Farfeleder wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: >>=20 >> For embedded systems, it may be best to disable libedit entirely in = the >> end product (we don't currently have a knob for this). If you need to >> log in to such a system, the additions will likely be useful, as = there >> may not be any other shell on the system. The completion code is = fairly >> small compared to the rest of libedit. >=20 > Maybe we could compile two sh binaries, an interactive one with all = the > fancy features enabled (filename completion, history editing, mail > checking etc.) and a simple one only for scripting? > I don't know if it makes a real difference though. I don't think it makes any difference. NetBSD's sh has filename = completion and other things for ages and there's no significant penalty = on embedded systems. Regards, -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0B47D84F-23BE-4D05-AAFF-211CA6BB6BD4>