#10339: Simplify spkg/pipestatus
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  jdemeyer        |       Owner:  GeorgSWeber        
       Type:  defect          |      Status:  needs_review       
   Priority:  major           |   Milestone:  sage-4.6.1         
  Component:  build           |    Keywords:  pipestatus Makefile
     Author:  Jeroen Demeyer  |    Upstream:  N/A                
   Reviewer:  Leif Leonhardy  |      Merged:                     
Work_issues:                  |  
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Comment(by leif):

 Replying to [comment:28 jdemeyer]:
 > I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

 {{{
 #!sh
 ...
 if [ $# -eq 3 -a -n "$2" -a -n "$3" ]; then
     case "$1" in
         -j|--jeroen|--contra-intuitively)
              eval "$2" | eval "$3" ; pipestatus=(${PIPESTATUS[*]})
              ;;
         -l|--leif|--as-expected|--as-previously-with-current-bashs)
              eval "$2 | $3 ; pipestatus=(\${PIPESTATUS[*]})"
              ;;
          *)
              usage
     esac
     if [ ${pipestatus[1]} -ne 0 ]; then
         exit ${pipestatus[1]}
     else
         exit ${pipestatus[0]}
     fi
 else
     usage
 fi # semper

 # NOTREACHED
 }}}

 > Just to be clear: are you refusing a positive_review because of this or
 can you live with my patch?

 You refuse to get convinced...

 Honestly, I reluctantly gave ''a lot'' of positive reviews to IMHO bad (to
 be fair, some of them worse) things recently, like keeping useless baggage
 in spkgs or leaving definitely ''wrong'' code like `unset MAKEFLAGS` in
 because others feared to make changes, in fact corrections, or like
 introducing new superfluous behavior regarding `SAGE64` (which should be
 called `SAGE_FORCE_64_BIT_BUILD`, to restate it once more) etc., at the
 same time having invested into tickets that then wouldn't get merged or
 again postponed, to next year.

 I'll leave the decision to someone else. It's certainly not such an
 important design decision, but why should I agree on something I still
 have a different opinion on?

 You didn't give an answer to the other aspects I mentioned.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10339#comment:29>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.

Reply via email to