Further sh(1) plans

[Garrett Cooper]

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Stefan Farfeleder <stefan at fafoe.narf.at> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

    Something I thought about too as this would increase the size of
/rescue/sh as it's statically linked (or at least the copy of
/rescue/sh should be compiled without libedit support). It would
increase the runtime size and startup time for /bin/sh, but the text
sections should be shared and thus the overhead should be minimized
for dynamic copies of /bin/sh .
Thanks,
-Garrett