* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 07:06:08PM CEST: > At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Note that while heirloom and Solaris sh are similar, they aren't > > identical, and I wouldn't want to invest work into fixing issues > > that are in the former only, since it's definitely not a normal > > development environment. > You're right about this, but please consider that the heirloom sh > offers a simple way to get immediate feedback about portability > errors w.r.t. Solaris sh, even for those contributors which don't have > an access to a Solaris or OpenSolaris system. Spurious errors > regarding only heirloom-sh can hamper this feedback. So I think it's > better if we ensure that the test scripts can work smootly with > heirloom-sh too, and not just to reach an only-therotically wider > portability, but to provide practical help to developers.
Well, if you invest work in this, that is fine with me. Also, if fixes are straight-forward and easily integrated. What I'd like to avoid is issues that add burden to maintenance and ongoing development. As an extreme (and unrealistic) example, at this point I wouldn't want to try to support an ancient shell without shell functions any more, because that would cause extra work when writing new testsuite tests. Cheers, Ralf
