Mike.Sullivan at sun.com wrote: > >From sfwnv-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org Mon Nov 26 15:50:11 2007 > >> If not, we > >> should discuss and decide on one. > > > >Ok... > >... who is the gatekeeper for SFWNV ? > > me... but while I would like things to be as consistent as they > can be (because todays's maintainer of the foo package may not be > tomorrow's) I'm not really interested in going to meetings about shell > style.
Would you be interested to sponsor an all-in-one cleanup patch (including things like adding "-xtrconst" to CFLAGS (e.g. less memory wasted with duplicate string literals etc.) etc. ...) ? > And while yes, if such standards are agreed on I do think going > and fixing all the scripts would be a good thing, I'd also hope > it would be a one-time thing and not something that happens each > time a nifty new shell feature comes along :) Uhm... AFAIK the things I'm bickering about are "new" since at least ~~18 years (excluding the "ksh-style functions vs. bourne-style functions"-issue which was one of the major changes between ksh88 and ksh93 which was done for POSIX standard conformance... but even that is now 15 years old). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
