On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 23:38 -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On Wednesday 19 May 2010 22:34:09 Peter Tyser wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > Maybe some other shells happen to allow read without arguments, but its > > > > a crapshoot as its not a standard. > > > > > > Which is why you say #!/bin/bash and then teach busybox's shells to > > > understand the name "bash". The name is a promise of an API beyond > > > Posix. > > > > That's fine by me, adding optional support for bashisms to busybox's > > shells seems like a good idea. However, how does that relate to the > > #!/bin/bash vs #!/bin/sh debate in build scripts we're having (or > > hopefully had?)? I'd guess the vast majority of developers don't use > > busybox's shell when building busybox itself. > > I do. If the development environment you're creating isn't capable of self- > hosting, it's not finished.
That's your opinion. And for what its worth, you need a non-busybox shell for the first build, which detracts from that opinion. Additionally, the complaint about not being able to use busybox's shell to build busybox (http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-May/072479.html) was an argument to use *POSIX* only, not to make busybox bash-compatible as you're arguing. Sure, we could either: 1. Add all of bash's functionality to busybox and use bash for scripts (Your preference. Seems like a good goal, but you're targeting a moving, non-standard target (correct me if I'm mistaken).) 2. Using POSIX scripting and use sh for scripts (What most others are including me, are arguing for). <snip> > > Or am I missing something? I thought we had reached the > > consensus that we should strive to remove bashisms from the build > > scripts. Is this still the case? > > Given that I've argued consistently against that position during this entire > discussion, I find your idea of "consensus" somewhat strange. If my memory is correct, I think the vast majority of people have been in favor of not using bashisms, including Denys at this point: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-May/072495.html Thus I thought everyone was on the same page after Denys email. Adding bashism support to busybox is fine by me, but my understanding was that was a separate issue to the debate about what shell we should be using for build scripts. Other than you, I haven't heard other arguing for using bashisms. There's been a lot of emails, maybe I'm missing some though. Could you *concisely* state why you think we should be using bash for the build scripts? Maybe a list of pros/cons? We need to resolve this debate... Best, Peter _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
