1 |
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:38:17 -0400 |
2 |
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote: |
5 |
> > Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
8 |
> >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> |
9 |
> >>> wrote: |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> >>>> POSIX Shell compliance |
12 |
> >>> |
13 |
> >>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and |
14 |
> >>> can't easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept |
15 |
> >>> having to rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove |
16 |
> >>> the dep. |
17 |
> >>> |
18 |
> >> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can |
19 |
> >> deal with the package managers. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > Additionally, this is extremely unlikely because a number of |
22 |
> > developers insist on bash, to the extent that it would likely split |
23 |
> > gentoo in half if this were to be forced. It wouldn't pass |
24 |
> > council. It's unlikely to even /get/ to council. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > Openrc could move to POSIX shell because its primary dev at the |
27 |
> > time wanted it that way and it's only a single package. However, |
28 |
> > even then, doing it was controversial enough that said developer |
29 |
> > ended up leaving gentoo in-part over that, tho he did continue to |
30 |
> > develop openrc as a gentoo hosted project for quite some years. |
31 |
> > Now you're talking trying to do it for /every/ (well, almost every) |
32 |
> > package, thus touching every single gentoo dev. It's just not |
33 |
> > going to happen in even the medium term (say for argument APIs |
34 |
> > 5-7ish), let alone be something practical enough to implement, soon |
35 |
> > enough (even if everyone agreed on the general idea, they don't), |
36 |
> > to be anything like conceivable for EAPI5. |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> > So just let that one be. It's simply not worth tilting at that |
39 |
> > windmill. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Would you (or someone else) elaborate on the specific features of bash |
42 |
> that people find attractive? |
43 |
|
44 |
Local variables, reasonable behavior (like 'FOO=abc bar' where bar is |
45 |
macro), arrays, [[ ]] tests (which are obviously faster than calling |
46 |
external test program). |
47 |
|
48 |
One more use: printing useful die messages (in POSIX sh there's no way |
49 |
to do a backtrace). |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Best regards, |
53 |
Michał Górny |