From: Dan K. <da...@ke...> - 2003-03-29 05:53:34
|
Manoj Iyer wrote: > You have a very valid point here, I subscribe to the same view point > that everything should be standard complient POSIX or otherwise. I am > running into some similar problems myslef! In fact the quick and "ugly" > fix to my problem is to have a staticly linked bash on my system. Also > another problems I am facing is that ash does not support functoins very > well. > > Most often programs written in shell script use awk, sed etc, on > embedded systems these commands may not be available, so is there an > acceptable minimum set of support commands & utilities in the embedded > community?? > > If we can lay out the ground rules now it will be easy for any furure > development. > > In fact I have a ton of tests (shell scripts) heavily tied to bash that > I plan to drop in the near future. Clearly these will break on your > system like it is breaking on mine. :-) I wish I really knew what the "right" way to procede was. Pragmatically, if we had a reference posix shell we could all test with (that had no extensions), that would help quite a bit; then the scripts would run on any posix-compliant shell. I'm afraid the only thing I can suggest is that we use busybox (with all optional features enabled) as an approximation of a minimal posix environment. It does support a small awk and sed, I think, though I haven't really checked. I may get more into this as I continue to coax LTP to run well on my systems. In case anyone thinks I'm dissing bash, really, I'm not. I love bash. Hey, one other environment that uses ash is Cygwin. Anyone tried running LTP on Cygwin? It'd be cool if that passed... - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045 |