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 |