On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 04:03:39 GMT, Mike Duigou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> configure line 29:
>>
>>> 27:
>>> 28: # Get an absolute path to this script, since that determines the
>>> top-level directory.
>>> 29: source_path="${BASH_SOURCE[0]:-$0}"
>>
>> Can we (do we want to) rely the shell running this script itself supporting
>> BASH_SOURCE and/or other potential bash-isms?
>
> It is explicitly a bash script so I believe it is OK to use bash-isms. I
> usually write pure POSIX scripts because of the issues with MacOS
> compatibility (they use a very old GPLv2 version of BASH) and compatibility
> with other shells but didn't feel it was an issue here.
This script is just a very thin wrapper of the script in
`make/autoconf/configure`. That script is explicitly called with `bash` so
using bash-isms there (and in the rest of the configure script and build
system) is fine. In this wrapper however, I think it's better to stick with
compatible shell as much as possible. The shebang in this file isn't really
relevant as we can't make files executable. I suspect plenty of users are still
running this as `sh configure` out of habit.
I would recommend moving the space check to `make/autoconf/configure` instead.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10477
