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 1IchFB-0007ZI-Uh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:52:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l92CgSOk018904; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:42:28 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l92CcxZA013897 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:38:59 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922E7652E7 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:38:58 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:38:57 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200710012259.40589.uberlord@gentoo.org> <1191325130.6284.116.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> <47023095.2090907@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <47023095.2090907@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2741519.DizlnZGyGx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200710020838.58266.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 5a76eb14-5d7b-4299-8cff-4a2ed96d27ee X-Archives-Hash: dcfd922c69cdfa2268e626836449d4a3 --nextPart2741519.DizlnZGyGx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote: > IFF your proposed changes lead to something that is simpler or as simple > to write, faster or as fast to parse, easier or as easy to > read/maintain; then you may have a solid stance. Otherwise it is a > pointless annoyance for everybody, you first, us second. in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is th= is=20 speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the time that = it=20 takes bash, but bash can do it in a 1 second, do we care ? the majority of= =20 ebuilds are going to take magnitudes larger to get the job done=20 (running ./configure && make). =2Dmike --nextPart2741519.DizlnZGyGx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARwI74kFjO5/oN/WBAQLfTw/8DQMlbJiPe8NIruzpO1TEN7HfPZZH2jP8 xF8FYv4mburexReQ11d2SlITdWkpKMNqRLZ+FnrSMTU65bCDOUvO5dFfXWyDZ2ld 4TClxZBrDn9aILwz9y0+zZm6n+2ErXO54bq2QwkfGIPFRIZPUhw4ooNcc49kVyV6 5HKipw4oRti4FbLNEy4aTyvQF9MTmnokRdYkrVbiZ3Z0vioXCxy0N7q/oU8stxn8 +L3T0ToXy3iiRyaXm0owcZJBGItyRy2kskMTU0Vc66HM7+jLo3pmeoAPZGbGHsDI XbEbE/VMXYQneMyFBFUyEkTmRCBdCESUlK7WegSGE+SsmaYkLDjIWGc1fDk2FGWk 9tvFPtW5w/4Lu7/otNPm2UlV7YdG0GkamKKRGYl51yW+bTpyKtcqxutp07OGEpor LIzeSLZvI+TfKAA7Fg6uLpGgNnrC6OdsGVSrXvvn01+gKhuOWZ7yz2yoiXKNAWsp fSVbskuH+DaNna5StVl2AvBl5Ip+JoWOg7DT9FVNyBeR3eFqA+57UWz6j1NLWhZ9 e1wHChaoflbto0MXobIVYDzCs+hwSf1i0d4TywdJkZ3y6ONOrgaSJ2mYd9K4L9q3 KOI9BT0+T+jMrrV99Zjgr76DJ/aRe+T+Wz32uJ7e53M59ssqbvkbG+3kvL7BUe80 lQX3uMs5TSo= =uE0b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2741519.DizlnZGyGx-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list