On Monday 17 May 2010 12:07:27 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
Oh boy... But then you'll also have to imitate those many intentional
obscure bashisms in hush, will you not?
Yes.
This was always the plan. Adding support for things people actually _use_ to
busybox is what busybox does.
The
On Monday 17 May 2010 06:23:30 Natanael Copa wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in
On Tuesday 18 May 2010 17:54:44 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Hey Rob, please do abstain from biting our contributors. :)
Ok. Sorry.
Rob
--
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
___
busybox mailing list
On Mon, 17 May 2010, Paul Smith wrote:
IMO if you want bash, get bash (and put #!/bin/bash at the top of your
scripts). If you put #!/bin/sh at the top of your scripts, restrict
yourself to POSIX shell features.
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 23:54 +0200, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
-
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Cathey, Jim jcat...@ciena.com wrote:
We have embedded systems that don't have room for bash.
I don't think bash provides that much useful stuff in
its extensions that warrant locking ourselves to it.
But then, the whole trend away from portable coding
doesn't
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn
cristian.ionescu-idbo...@axis.com wrote:
wrong. It eats leading and trailing whitespace.
I cannot find anything in the opengroup page you earlier referred to:
On Monday 17 May 2010 02:23, Rob Landley wrote:
On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:27:40 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
I had a look through and found:
,[ individual ]
| possible bashism in individual line 15 (brace expansion):
He changed the start to #!/bin/bash and you're still
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Saturday 15 May 2010 13:30:51 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
Yes. A performant shell it's crucial in the embedded world, as an
important part of cross-building and also running the target
system.
On the target use a busybox shell.
Or
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in build
failures when using sh or dash
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Denys Vlasenko
vda.li...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 01:05, Peter Tyser wrote:
-find -type d | while read; do
- d=$REPLY
-
+find -type d | while read d; do
I applied this part, and changed #!/bin/sh to bash.
Please keep the #!/bin/sh and
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 13:23 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 01:52:24PM -0700, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:27:40 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
Thank you.
I had a look through and found:
,[ individual ]
| possible bashism in individual line 15 (brace expansion):
He changed the start to #!/bin/bash and you're
But, we could still have fun discussing how we go about making the scripts
as portable as possible and avoid breaking peoples builds, I presume.
And this is, IMO, the main point to this flamy exchange of ideas.
Take care Rob. And try to focus on the matter at hand, which should not
be
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Peter Tyser pty...@xes-inc.com wrote:
But, we could still have fun discussing how we go about making the scripts
as portable as possible and avoid breaking peoples builds, I presume.
And this is, IMO, the main point to this flamy exchange of ideas.
Take care
I also echo your opinions about keeping the scripts portable.
I can sympathise with this point of view.
However, I can see another point of view:
Why, after years and years of happily using bash, everybody should be
tortured now by being forced to work in a shell which:
* does not
Message-
From: busybox-boun...@busybox.net [mailto:busybox-boun...@busybox.net]
On Behalf Of Peter Tyser
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:03 PM
To: Denys Vlasenko
Cc: busybox@busybox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gen_build_files.sh: Remove bashisms
I also echo your opinions about keeping the scripts
Patches welcome? Here's mine.
License: Public domain.
--- gen_build_files.sh 2010-05-17 22:00:34.912406823 +0200
+++ gen_build_files_fixed.sh2010-05-17 22:03:33.893406743 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
#!/bin/sh
-# bashism:
+# bashism removed:
+# lines 22 and 48 had
# read -r without variable name
On Monday 17 May 2010 22:10, Douglas Mencken wrote:
Patches welcome? Here's mine.
License: Public domain.
- while read -r; do
- test x$REPLY = xINSERT REPLY=$s
- printf %s\n $REPLY
+ while read -r reply; do
+
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 01:05, Peter Tyser wrote:
-find -type d | while read; do
- d=$REPLY
-
+find -type d | while read d; do
I applied this part, and changed #!/bin/sh to bash.
On Monday 17 May 2010 21:03, Peter Tyser wrote:
I also echo your opinions about keeping the scripts portable.
I can sympathise with this point of view.
However, I can see another point of view:
Why, after years and years of happily using bash, everybody should be
tortured now
On Mon, 17 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 17 May 2010 22:10, Douglas Mencken wrote:
Patches welcome? Here's mine.
License: Public domain.
- while read -r; do
- test x$REPLY = xINSERT REPLY=$s
- printf %s\n $REPLY
+
Definitely put me down in the camp that does NOT want to add a lot of
bash-specific features to the default shell.
The default shell should be POSIX, nothing more. Anything else runs the
risk of introducing incompatibilities with standard POSIX scripts,
resulting in failures!
For example, what
On Saturday 15 May 2010 13:30:51 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
And of course you program in shell for performance reasons.
Yes. A performant shell it's crucial in the embedded world, as an
important part of cross-building and also running the target
On Saturday 15 May 2010 13:10:08 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 15:57:34 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
Yes. Horrid obfuscation.
By the way, if you were making the argument this should work under
busybox's own shells, I'd
On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:27:40 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 01:05, Peter Tyser wrote:
-find -type d | while read; do
- d=$REPLY
-
+find -type d | while read d; do
I applied this part, and changed #!/bin/sh to
On Friday 14 May 2010 22:52, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 15:57:34 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
Yes. Horrid obfuscation.
By the way, if you were making the argument this should work under
busybox's own shells, I'd be all for it. You could even make a
standards argment around
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 22:52, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
Simple fix: say #!/bin/bash at the top of all shell scripts, always.
Not surprisingly, I disagree :)
dash is 5+ times faster than bash.
I
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
And of course you program in shell for performance reasons.
Yes. A performant shell it's crucial in the embedded world, as an
important part of cross-building and also running the target system.
Debian is sucking in bad design decisions from Ubuntu,
On Friday 14 May 2010 22:52, Peter Tyser wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 15:41 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in
On Friday 14 May 2010 01:05, Peter Tyser wrote:
-find -type d | while read; do
- d=$REPLY
-
+find -type d | while read d; do
I applied this part, and changed #!/bin/sh to bash.
Thanks!
--
vda
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 14 May 2010 01:05, Peter Tyser wrote:
-find -type d | while read; do
- d=$REPLY
-
+find -type d | while read d; do
I applied this part, and changed #!/bin/sh to bash.
Thanks!
Thank you.
I had a look through and found:
,[
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in build
failures when using sh or dash as an interpreter:
Simple fix: say #!/bin/bash at the top of all shell
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in build
failures when using sh or dash as an interpreter:
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 15:41 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in build
failures when using sh or dash as an
On Friday 14 May 2010 15:52:24 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:05:53 Peter Tyser wrote:
Using 'read' without a variable is not supported in many shells. Lines
such as 'while read; do' in gen_build_files.sh would result in
On Friday 14 May 2010 15:57:34 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Peter Tyser wrote:
I also personally prefer explicitly specifying a variable for 'read'
instead of using the magical REPLY variable.
Yes. Horrid obfuscation.
By the way, if you were making the argument
38 matches
Mail list logo
