"trying to be an MIT-Licenced system" – What is the purpose of this? I think that is a waste of time and energy. 2010/8/13, pulkomandy <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello, > I'm wondering why we are using bash as a shell interpreter. It's > licenced under the GPL, and we're trying to be an MIT-Licenced system. > Also, it's big and complicated. We apparently have a set of hacks which > prevent us to use the mainstream version and force us to have it in our > source. > > I would like to switch to mksh [1]. This one compiles out of the box on > Haiku. The sourcecode is a lot simpler, and it doesn't feature all the > annoying utf-8 bugs that end up making your command line all borked. > > The binary is also about 4 times smaller for equivalent functionality. > > I did some tests and replaced bash in my Haiku install with mksh. The > bootscript needed one change to the launch function, as mksh doesn't > like "shift" when there is only one argument. I'm not sure this is a bug > in mksh or a real difference between it and bash, as mksh aims for korn > shell compatibility. This would be a move away from BeOS, but bash could > still be provided as an optional package for people really needing it > (and I don't think there is much BeOS software relying on bash being > there). > > Finally, this would allow us to close a lot of coverity bugs. > > Any good reason not to make the switch ? > > [1] https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm > > -- > Adrien. > >