Dear Tom, In message <20210707141418.GZ9516@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > Have you validated one of those exceedingly complex boot scripts with a > modern hush (and some fakery for u-boot commands) ? No.
No, I havent. I also don't claim that I know all the warts and issues with our old hus, but for the ones I am aware the woraround usually splitting complex or nested expressions into a sequence of simpler steps. I cannot remember any cases where the resulting code should be incompatible to a shell without that specific bug. And yes, I am aware of the problems with the distro_bootcmd stuff. Thisis exactly what I had in mind when I wrote: if you run into such situations you should lean back and reflect a bit. I can undrstand the intentions of all this stuff, but the implementation is a horrible mess. > I'm just > saying I expect there to be enough risk-adverse groups that just > dropping our old hush entirely might not be possible right away. Of > course, if all of the current in-tree complex cases Just Work, that > might be a good argument against needing to keep such levels of > backwards compatibility. There is only one way to test this. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de The inappropriate cannot be beautiful. - Frank Lloyd Wright _The Future of Architecture_ (1953)