| 1 |
On 10/2/07, Alex Tarkovsky <alextarkovsky@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/2/07, Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > I accept the argument for initscripts, since an embedded system is not |
| 4 |
> > > likely to have bash. But for compile-time (which shouldn't happen on an |
| 5 |
> > > embedded target) there simply isn't any real benefit to end-users that I |
| 6 |
> > > can see. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The benefit is that our portage tree uses an accepted standardised |
| 9 |
> > syntax. bash is just a standard to itself. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> How many Gentoo devs are familiar with Bash syntax? All of them. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> How many are familiar with the more obscure POSIX sh syntax? A few. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Migrating Gentoo's init scripts, eclasses, and ebuilds -- though not |
| 16 |
> necessarily all of them -- over to POSIX sh syntax requires all Gentoo |
| 17 |
> devs to know the rules of sh just to be able to continue contributing |
| 18 |
> to Gentoo without breaking stuff. This will also put off more casual |
| 19 |
> contributors who work through proxy maintainerships, Sunrise, and |
| 20 |
> Bugzilla. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Then you'll need to ensure that all official documentation accomodates |
| 23 |
> sh syntax, including the ebuild quiz. (And what about the poor folks |
| 24 |
> at the Gentoo wiki?) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Add these concerns to the technical objections already raised, and the |
| 27 |
> touted benefits of your proposal are overwhelmed by the amount of work |
| 28 |
> it would create and the disruption it will cause to Gentoo |
| 29 |
> development. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
And the pain it'll cause users who maintain their own ebuilds/scripts |
| 32 |
locally. But if no consideration is given by Roy's proposal to the |
| 33 |
concerns above, then the users, per usual, will most certainly be |
| 34 |
overlooked. |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives