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 Rob. And try to focus on the matter at hand, which should not >> be "which shell is best", but how to make the scripts portable. > > I 100% agree. Participating in this discussion is like wrestling a > greased pig:)
Because it's political discussion now. :) > 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 have a single source release linked to its homepage (http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/dash/) * does not support many (any?) bash extensions, even simple ones * does not have a testsuite Why? Who are those people and why I am forced to use their shell now? Why am I a hostage now to their whim on when, and *whether*, they will agree to fix bug foo or implement feature baz? bash didn't have bug foo and had feature baz, and I was happy. Now I'm not. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
