Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:42:50
Message-Id: CAB9SyzSb4kmeijQZpiE-_yaR5fL3RvvT6Lr=y95jR6H4MZppyg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 by Alec Warner
1 On 21 June 2012 05:33, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
2 > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
3 >> Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
4 [...]
5 >> POSIX Shell compliance
6 >>        There has been a great deal of work done to give the user full control
7 >> of what is on his system and there is more that we can do there. In
8 >> particular, I think a lean Gentoo Linux system should be able to use
9 >> busybox sh and nothing else. That requires POSIX shell compliance.
10 >> OpenRC init scripts support this and the configure scripts support this.
11 >> The few exceptions are bugs that are addressed by the Gentoo BSD developers.
12 >>        As such, I think we should make EAPI=5 use POSIX shell by default. If
13 >> an ebuild requires bash, we can allow the ebuild to declare that (e.g.
14 >> WANT_SH=bash), but that should be the exception and not the rule.
15 >>
16 >
17 > Our ebuilds are written in bash. [...] Screw
18 > trying to get the PM to stop using bash; developers are not interested
19 > in writing ebuilds in posix shell; bar none.
20 >
21 > Why would I as an ebuild author waste a bunch of time writing my
22 > ebuild in posix compatible sh when I can use bash (and if I had a
23 > better language than bash to write ebuilds in; I'd use that too.) You
24 > are free to write your ebuilds in posix sh; good luck to you.
25
26 Ebuilds are written in bash. And the convenience of using bash
27 far outweighs any benefits of using posix sh instead. One needs
28 to make a very strong case to convince enough developers to
29 change this...
30
31 --
32 Cheers,
33
34 Ben | yngwin
35 Gentoo developer
36 Gentoo Qt project lead