Junio C Hamano wrote:
Bryan Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
+       for file in $(SCRIPTS); do \
+               sed -e "s/DATE\=date/DATE=$${DATE}/" -e "s/CP\=cp/CP=$${CP}/" -e 
"s/XARGS\=xargs/XARGS=$${XARGS}/" -e "s/STAT\=stat/STAT=$${STAT}/" $$file > $$file.new; \
+               cat $$file.new > $$file; rm $$file.new; \
+       done

I am not yet convinced "one variable per GNU program" is the
right way to do

My first thought was to have some type of "prefix" argument that could either be "g" or "". But xargs is called "gnuxargs" instead of "gxargs". I'm not sure where that braindamage comes from, but I have to deal with it.

To me, one variable per program makes sense: we do it in Makefiles all the time $(CC), $(LD), et cetera.

> (I do agree it is a problem and I appreciate
your trying to solving it; an obvious alternative cop-out would
be to fix this in the user's environment, but there might be a
saner solution).

If we can move the solution into the Portfile somehow, it probably wouldn't bother me.

Assuming that this is the way to go, wouldn't
it be saner if this sed munging is done in only one place, say
git-sh-setup-script, and have everybody include that?  If we
want to have some scripts usable not at the top-level GIT
directory, then git-sh-setup-script may not be a good place; in
which case introduce git-sh-compat-script and have everybody
include _that_ instead?

That's the way it's done in cogito: it's in cg-Xlib and nowhere else. This isn't obvious from the Makefile: perhaps I should have made it so.

I was very tempted to put it in git-sh-setup-script, but realized that was inappropriate. Introducing a gid-sh-compat-script seems more sane.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to