On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:29 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 01-10-2007 22:59:40 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > I would like to propse a new versionator.eclass for consideration > > (attached). > > > > This version, I believe, is more readable and maintainable then the one > > currently in portage. It also uses a lot less code and has the bonus of > > being > > pure sh. > > What is your rationale to say that "pure sh" is a "bonus"? Especially > given the environment this is used in as ferdy already pointed out?
The bonus is that it works on shells other than bash. > I personally like consistency. So if we use bash in ebuilds, then I'd > like to use bash in eclasses too. I'm interested in your motivation to > make this eclass "pure sh", whatever that may mean. I like consistency too, and I'll be pushing for using sh instead of forcing bash. My motivation? Simple. I don't believe that the portage tree should be locked into using one shell. I believe that vendor lock-in should happen at the social level, not the technical one. portage itself was a lock-in until until PMS came about, now I'd like to remove the lock-in from the tree itself. This in itself is a good thing as we can pick and choose the tools we want to use as they're all playing on the same field. This same rationale applies to scriptlets outside portage tree use, such as revdep-rebuild [1]. It's more of a bashlet, but I've also demonstrated that there was no reason to force bash there. Obviously there are more lock-ins than just the shell, but it's a good start. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
