From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Icevh-0000A2-Kp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:24:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l92ADo9K024845; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:13:50 GMT Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l92A9iDl018084 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:09:44 GMT Received: from [10.73.1.31] (uberlaptop.marples.name [10.73.1.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085FE190038 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:09:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass From: Roy Marples To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20071002094920.GL24867@gentoo.org> References: <200710012259.40589.uberlord@gentoo.org> <20071002072922.GC24867@gentoo.org> <1191314887.6284.11.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> <20071002092246.GK24867@gentoo.org> <1191317845.6284.21.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> <20071002094920.GL24867@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:09:21 +0100 Message-Id: <1191319761.6284.35.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ae91318b-1c44-4655-bfba-43dd5859e119 X-Archives-Hash: fe64fdf3986bb16387f7853347fcf663 On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta > information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X > says their code should be compiled with GCC, what are the benefits > exactly if you change that into "should be compiled with a C99 compliant > compiler", considering you are eventually interested in the produced > code only. (Is it worth it to teach/force devs to use something else > if this is only how to obtain the end product, which should run with > "anything"?) project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny the ICC users the ability to compile it? I don't think so. I think users should have a choice. If users didn't have choice, then EGCS would never have happened. I believe it is work teaching devs to use POSIX shell over bash. For example, many of the recent commits have highlighted that a lot of devs have no idea when it comes to quoting. My view on this is because bash encourages you not to quote by using [[ ]], unlike POSIX [ ] which forces you to know when to quote. It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list