On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:18:32PM -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > On 14-05-29 12:51 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > No functional changes intended > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> > > --- > > release.sh | 128 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/release.sh b/release.sh > > index abfcc29..a05b0c9 100755 > > --- a/release.sh > > +++ b/release.sh > > @@ -195,6 +195,63 @@ process_modules() { > > > > #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > # Function: process_module > > > > #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > +# Code 'return 0' on success > > +# Code 'return 1' on error > > +# Sets global variable $section > > +get_section() { > > + local module_url > > + local full_module_url > Local variables are not supported by plain Bourne Shell > > If there is a consensus to reduce the script compatibility, the top > comment should be changed to set the new lowest common denominator: > > # Note on portability: > # This script is intended to run on any platform supported by X.Org. > # Basically, it should be able to run in a Bourne shell. > > This is the same requirement for build.sh for which I heard people still > needing.
I was wondering about that, but at least bash --posix was happy with it and I'm struggling how to test pure Bourne shell compatibility. I'd give a big +1 for requiring bash for these scripts. This isn't some super-portable script that needs to run on everything, it's a script that is manually run by a maintainer. And I rather pity the maintainer that can't install a proper shell. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
