On 02-10-2007 09:48:06 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > 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 give you a big chance Solaris' or AIX' /bin/sh won't grok this stuff. > > 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. I admire your courage. > 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 "vendor lock-in" is an interesting term to mention here, as bash is open source, and I think (I'm not a lawyer) free to use as long as you want, and modifyable if you like. > 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. Given my own "history" I have a hard time to believe you are persuing the right track here. It may or may not be a secret that I currently do the complete opposite of what you're trying to do -- so far with a good lot of success, especially given the number of completely different platforms. Question from me to you is, whether your vision is just to get (Free)BSD working seamlessly with Gentoo, or whether you also look beyond your current scope to the "Meta Distribution". This includes the benefit of moving from bash to POSIX(?) sh as standard kit to interpret the meta information. Changing init.d scripts is one thing, changing the definition of how the meta information should be read is another thing. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
