Is there a specific reason why dash and mawk isn't supported?

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu May 5 17:12:10 PDT 2011


Erik Blomqvist wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hope this is the right mailing list for this question. If nothing else you
> seem to be the right people to ask.
> 
> Considering that dash and mawk are smaller and faster than bash and gawk I
> was a bit surprised to find that LFS doesn't support them. Even Ubuntu, that
> is a huge distribution by comparison, uses those packages because they
> provide better performance. Considering that one of the reasons for building
> your own linux system is to get better performance, it would make sense to
> use the best performing packages. So why doesn't LFS use or at least support
> these packages?
> 
> I'm specifically interested in knowing if there are any technical reasons
> for not supporting these packages, e.g. package x doesn't work with
> dash/mawk. If it's just for historical reasons, maybe it's time to
> reconsider?

The reason dash and mawk are smaller and faster is because they omit 
some functionality.

In the age of multi TB disks and Multi GHz prococessors, how much 
difference does a 'lite' version make?  My system boots in 8 seconds. 
How much time will I save?

   -- Bruce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list