On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:04:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On ke, 2016-10-12 at 14:16 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> If you really care, go ahead and send the patches to make these Bourne
> >> shell compatible, but then do also sign up for testing them on non-bash
> >> shells. The CI won't. I don't think it's worth the trouble, but YMMV.
> >
> > If they're re-written using POSIX sh constructs only, I don't think
> > they need to be tested outside of POSIX sh? That's what standards are
> > for.
> It's just that if the majority of folks and the CI have bash as /bin/sh,
> we won't notice when we accidentally add bashisms, and it'll eventually
> break. Maybe you could keep running shellcheck [1] on them, or
> something.

At the very least most/all Debian and Ubuntu systems use dash as /bin/sh.

It supports a very small subset of the bashisms (most notably local),
and is faster than bash.

> [1] https://www.shellcheck.net/
> > I also remember FreeBSD guys being all for letting bash dependency go.
> > So there'd be actual gains too.
> I'm biting my lips not to quip on that.
> > All are easily convertible. So let's do this.
> If you have the time, go ahead. But don't break *any* functionality, no
> compromises.

Kind regards, David
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to