Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: >> I like consistency too, and I'll be pushing for using sh instead of >> forcing bash. > > pushing a new standard by slowly converting the tree is not the way to go. > >> My motivation? Simple. I don't believe that the portage tree should be >> locked into using one shell. I believe that vendor lock-in should happen >> at the social level, not the technical one.
I don't see why vendor lock-in should happen at the social level? The technical one is a much better reason to use one tool over another, so long as we're not getting sucked in to a proprietary dead-end. >> portage itself was a lock-in >> until until PMS came about, now I'd like to remove the lock-in from the >> tree itself. This in itself is a good thing as we can pick and choose >> the tools we want to use as they're all playing on the same field. > > POSIX lacks useful bash extensions that are used heavily ... arrays, > string replacements, pattern matching with [[ == ]] to name some. here's > your "technical" reason for using the bash standard over POSIX: it's > superior. > ++ There's just too much nice stuff in BASH to drop down to sh to my mind. I for one would go right off Gentoo if i were forced to write ebuilds in sh. I accept the argument for initscripts, since an embedded system is not likely to have bash. But for compile-time (which shouldn't happen on an embedded target) there simply isn't any real benefit to end-users that I can see. >> This same rationale applies to scriptlets outside portage tree use, such >> as revdep-rebuild [1]. It's more of a bashlet, but I've also >> demonstrated that there was no reason to force bash there. > > not really ... there's a reason the environment dictated inside of the > package manager requires GNU stuff ... the extensions provided make life > easy. > all this conversion from trivial GNU extensions to limited POSIX > interfaces is a pita (as can trivially be seen with find and xargs). as > for "no reason", just because it can be done differently doesnt mean it > should. > Hear hear: if you're that worried about BASH being too big and slow, why not spend the _huge_ amount of time it's going to take you to convert the tree (which is not likely to be welcomed by all ebuild devs) on making BASH leaner and quicker for the myriad platforms on which it runs? /me votes for GASH -- Gentoo Assured SHell ;P -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
