| 1 |
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:29 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 01-10-2007 22:59:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I would like to propse a new versionator.eclass for consideration |
| 5 |
> > > (attached). |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > This version, I believe, is more readable and maintainable then the one |
| 8 |
> > > currently in portage. It also uses a lot less code and has the bonus of |
| 9 |
> > > being pure sh. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > What is your rationale to say that "pure sh" is a "bonus"? Especially |
| 12 |
> > given the environment this is used in as ferdy already pointed out? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The bonus is that it works on shells other than bash. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
which is irrelevant here |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > I personally like consistency. So if we use bash in ebuilds, then I'd |
| 19 |
> > like to use bash in eclasses too. I'm interested in your motivation to |
| 20 |
> > make this eclass "pure sh", whatever that may mean. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I like consistency too, and I'll be pushing for using sh instead of |
| 23 |
> forcing bash. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
pushing a new standard by slowly converting the tree is not the way to go. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> My motivation? Simple. I don't believe that the portage tree should be |
| 28 |
> locked into using one shell. I believe that vendor lock-in should happen |
| 29 |
> at the social level, not the technical one. portage itself was a lock-in |
| 30 |
> until until PMS came about, now I'd like to remove the lock-in from the |
| 31 |
> tree itself. This in itself is a good thing as we can pick and choose |
| 32 |
> the tools we want to use as they're all playing on the same field. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
POSIX lacks useful bash extensions that are used heavily ... arrays, string |
| 35 |
replacements, pattern matching with [[ == ]] to name some. here's |
| 36 |
your "technical" reason for using the bash standard over POSIX: it's |
| 37 |
superior. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> This same rationale applies to scriptlets outside portage tree use, such |
| 40 |
> as revdep-rebuild [1]. It's more of a bashlet, but I've also |
| 41 |
> demonstrated that there was no reason to force bash there. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
not really ... there's a reason the environment dictated inside of the package |
| 44 |
manager requires GNU stuff ... the extensions provided make life easy. all |
| 45 |
this conversion from trivial GNU extensions to limited POSIX interfaces is a |
| 46 |
pita (as can trivially be seen with find and xargs). as for "no reason", |
| 47 |
just because it can be done differently doesnt mean it should. |
| 48 |
-mike |
Archives