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 1IpJo6-0000Zb-CW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:29:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lA68SFBU007447; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:28:15 GMT Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lA68QMkX005040 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:26:22 GMT Received: from [10.73.1.30] (uberpc.marples.name [10.73.1.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02D51900FD for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:26:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and "portable" From: Roy Marples To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20071106080358.415dcd05@blueyonder.co.uk> References: <472B29B9.50002@gentoo.org> <1194257626.4196.9.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> <1194268910.6977.86.camel@sapc154> <200711051521.07840.vapier@gentoo.org> <1194304723.2906.47.camel@uberpc.marples.name> <20071106071249.260309c4@blueyonder.co.uk> <1194334820.2887.7.camel@uberpc.marples.name> <20071106080358.415dcd05@blueyonder.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:25:57 +0000 Message-Id: <1194337557.2887.28.camel@uberpc.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 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8d2b9fc7-9e24-40e6-a3b6-8f6d2cbd44e9 X-Archives-Hash: 0edd55abac76b19018c10d2af1490e7d On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:03 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:40:20 +0000 > Roy Marples wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which > > > package manager is being used. If you want to change that you'll > > > have to rewrite the entire tree. > > > > Az once said near enough the same thing about baselayout. And that's > > your view, your entitled to it, but it is not my view. Change a little > > bit here, a little bit there. Slowly does it. > > It's not a view. It's a simple fact. It's my considered opinion that it's a view. You are free to call it what you like. > > Yes, I know that a fair chunk of the tree will need a re-write, just > > in the same way that the init scripts got a re-write. It will take > > time, it will not happen magically over night. To think overwise is > > foolish :) > > How many lines of code are in baselayout? How many in the tree? > > Pushing for non-bash for ebuilds is pointless. The cost of using bash is > tiny; the cost of not using bash is huge. Size of baselayout compared to the tree is small vs huge. But unlike baselayout, the ebuilds themselves should be relatively easy as they don't normally use bash specific features [1]. The real work is in the eclasses which make extensive use of bash specific features, such as arrays. A quick look at the dir shows that there's probably a similar number of eclasses to the number of init scripts installed by ebuilds. [1] The one expection being ${var//foo/var} which is used a fair bit. It could also be argued that versionator should be used more which oddly enough should also reduce the use of this bashism. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list