On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Herbert Duerr <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21.02.2012 16:59, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> On 02/21/12 10:15, Herbert Duerr wrote: >> >>> No objection to your plan but in general I do dislike the excessive >>>> dependence we have on bash. Perhaps you can clean the bash >>>> script too? It doesn't look too bad: >>>> >>> [...] >>> >> Aliases were absent from theBourne shell >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Bourne_shell<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell>>, >> which had the more powerful >> facility of functions. The alias concept was imported intoBourne Again >> Shell >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Bash_%28Unix_shell%29<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_%28Unix_shell%29>>(bash) >> and >> theKorn shell >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Korn_shell<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn_shell> >> >(ksh). >> >> So I think we cannot count on having alias for older bin/sh. >> > > Ah yes, thanks. Reworking the build process to work on all shells is a > goal I don't want to attack though; doing that may be an idea for > volunteers who enjoy getting intimate knowledge of the challenges and > problems of the build process in a huge multi-platform project. > > I'd just like to get rid of the script that gets built for *csh out of the > way, as it is in the source root and being named similar to its counterpart > leads to confusion IMHO. > as an FYI...looking at the man page for "sh" on people.apache.org (FreeBSD) indicates "alias" IS supported in "sh". I don't know what the internal "version" is of sh on this system. Not do I know WHEN support for "alias" was added to "sh'. In response to your original question, Herbert...yeah, maybe a good time to get rid of *csh dependencies...I think all *nix systems, regardless of variant, ship with "sh" or point it to something reasonable. > Herbert > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Follow your bliss." -- attributed to Joseph Campbell
