| 1 |
Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Please stop calling it "more portable". The shell code you see in |
| 5 |
>> configure can in a way be called "portable". Your POSIX compliant stuff |
| 6 |
>> isn't. In fact, by stating #!/bin/sh you actually make the code useless |
| 7 |
>> on a number of platforms, where it would have been working fine if there |
| 8 |
>> just were #!/bin/bash there. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It seems to me that you actually mean "more FreeBSD-able" or something, |
| 11 |
>> which is a high price to pay for a relatively small part of Gentoo as a |
| 12 |
>> whole. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Another way of looking at it is that you're forcing specific tools on |
| 15 |
> people, where I am asking people to use standard POSIX tools. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
No, you're waging a campaign to get all Gentoo ebuilds in sh, by pointing |
| 18 |
out how certain constructs can be rewritten in sh. If your campaign is |
| 19 |
successful, all Gentoo devs will be forced to write in sh. Saying it's |
| 20 |
standard when the standard is a) pretty old and b) pretty minimalistic |
| 21 |
doesn't make it a tool "that's up to the job". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I guess it's because I'm an Engineer and you probably aren't. If the |
| 24 |
> tool isn't up to the job, then fix the tool. If the tool doesn't claim |
| 25 |
> any standards compliance then feel free to change it. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
Er there are two conflicting statements there. The *standard* isn't up to |
| 28 |
the job, in that use of the sh syntax you promote leads to longer |
| 29 |
maintenance times and increased likelihood of bugs, since the code is |
| 30 |
counter-intuitive (aka fugly ;) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
As Mr Copa said "bash itself is portable." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
As a _software_ engineer I am vehemently opposed for the reasons given. The |
| 35 |
reason for my vehemence is that I don't want to see Gentoo devs spending |
| 36 |
extra time working around limitations in sh (which is a *base* standard) |
| 37 |
when really there are /far/ better technical ways round getting, say, |
| 38 |
ebuilds installed on a Linux Phone (and I have seen *no* other use-case |
| 39 |
which merits use of sh in package management; it's hardly our core |
| 40 |
user-base, is it?) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives