making "test" an ash built-in

[Tito]

On Thursday 8 June 2006 14:33, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 5:04 pm, Paul Fox wrote:
> > the total size hit is around 300 bytes (on x86).
> >
> > any objections if i commit this?
> 
> No objections.  I plan to obsolete the current ash code as soon as I can 
> figure out the right blackmail strategy to get a large enough consecutive 
> chunk of free time, but while people are still using it...  (You can't 
> _possibly_ make it more cluttered.)
> 
> > diffs below, but for clarity, the diff of the old coreutils/test.c
> > and the new libbb/bb_test.c is shown separately from the rest of
> > the patch.
> 
> One suggestion though: rather than moving the coreutils/test.c into libbb, 
> might it make more sense to move it into the shell directory instead?  (Along 
> with its config option?)
> 
> I'm thinking that all the traditional shell builtins might belong in there 
> (echo, true...), along with one switch to say something like "provide 
> non-builtin versions too" for all of them.
> 
> I'm not committed to this, just pondering.  I don't like putting an obvious 
> applet body in libbb like that, even if it is used from two places.  I'd 
> rather put both uses is one directory and have them shared that way, or 
> perhaps do the "two applets built from one source" trick like with 
> freeramdisk/fdflush...
> 
> > paul
> 
> Rob

Maybe something like this:

1) if a bb shell is built make them builtin
2) if they are also selected as applets let them be accessible through
     the ./busybox something  or link to busybox interface.

this maybe could be done by enabling/disabling them in applets.h so they are visible from outside
or calling them from the shell directly and let them hidden to the outside world.

This obviously is only a theoretical proposal and totally untested   ;-P

Ciao,
Tito