Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 12:35:51 +1000 (EST) From: Ada <ada@noether.lab.usyd.edu.au> To: chet@po.CWRU.Edu Subject: Re: 2.2.6 CD-ROM : Package dependencies up the creek ? Message-ID: <199806250236.MAA03969@noether.blah.org> In-Reply-To: <980624213056.AA12305.SM@nike.ins.cwru.edu> from Chet Ramey at "Jun 24, 98 05:30:56 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'd like to see zsh pushed for inclusion into the contrib tree; it's small, > > beautiful, and inclusive (in that it understands a fair amount of csh as > > well as sh syntax). > Wow. This is the first time I've ever heard zsh described as `small' > and `beautiful'. (FWIW, I don't think I'd describe bash that way, > either, no matter how drunk I was.) > I'd say that bash and zsh are of comparable size. The current > development version of bash-2.03, dynamically linked against > shared readline and history libraries, is: Well, shells should be statically linked. I was comparing static sizes and source sizes, and in this case, zsh is smaller by a fair chunk. -r--r--r-- 1 mirror mirror 1510428 Apr 17 14:10 bash-2.02.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 mason zsh 848878 Jun 1 08:15 zsh-3.1.4.tar.gz I don't have binaries for bash handy, so I can't give you relative static sizes. Source size is important if we ever consider integrating either into the source tree as the 'standard' "user" shell. (Which, IMHO, we should do for at least one user-friendly shell). -- "Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do." -- Bertrand Russell To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806250236.MAA03969>