[ANN] CRUX 3.2-rc3 available for testing
Antonio Hernández Blas
hba.nihilismus at gmail.com
Sat Nov 14 03:26:03 UTC 2015
Thanks for the explanation and your tests. The only thing that I can ask at
this moment is, how often are *those* packages recompiled? and it wouldn't
make more sense to force the use of dash with *just* the packages that take
In any case I'm going to be more careful with my own local ports :-)
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Juergen Daubert <jue at jue.li> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 08:50:10PM -0600, Antonio Hernández Blas wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Alan Mizrahi <
> alan+crux at mizrahi.com.ve>
> > wrote:
> > Expect trouble from using dash as /bin/sh.
> It's not a issue at all. All ports from our ISO, and everything we use
> just works fine with dash. Currently we have only one port from opt,
> that needs the CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash fix.
> > Already noticed this with my own /etc/rc.d/vde2 script which uses bash
> > arrays :-)
> Well, if you use bash arrays in a script you should use the right shebang
> > Any benefit or reason behind the use of dash as sh?
> Speed and resource usage. It's not relevant for things like rc scripts or
> e.g. our pkgmk, but really notable for compiling sources that uses the
> auto*/libtool stuff which normally calls a huge number of shells.
> I've made a, for sure unscientific, test with interesting results, see
> . Memory usage of bash is around 5 times of dash.
>  http://e33e40b3f200dbd7.paste.se/
> CRUX mailing list
> CRUX at lists.crux.nu
Antonio Hernández Blas | Oaxaca, México, Mx.
https://github.com/nihilismus | https://bitbucket.org/nihilismus |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRUX