Hi Jim,
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Personally I wouldn't worry about MSYS or even NFS/Solaris.
> As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to push your change.
> If someone finds a way to make it misbehave, I'm sure
> it'll be fixed promptly.
I've pushed it. Thanks.
Joel E. Denny wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> > Ok, is the following patch what you had in mind?
>>
>> I think so, yes, but let the bootstrap authors have their say please.
>
> Sure, I can wait.
>
>> Can you test this on MSYS or on an NFS mount with, say, Solaris or so?
>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Ok, is the following patch what you had in mind?
>
> I think so, yes, but let the bootstrap authors have their say please.
Sure, I can wait.
> Can you test this on MSYS or on an NFS mount with, say, Solaris or so?
I have no experience with MSYS.
* Joel E. Denny wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 03:56:49PM CET:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > > 1. If someone does "bash bootstrap", I'm not sure how to detect that in
> > > order to do it again in the exec.
> >
> > Yep, sounds like a problem. How about honoring $CONFIG_SHEL
on Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joel E. Denny
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:37:45 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] bootstrap: add bootstrap_sync option.
See discussion at
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00369.html>,
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-11/msg0020
* Joel E. Denny wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:27:08AM CET:
> Thanks to everyone for the input. How about the following patch? I
> foresee two minor issues:
>
> 1. If someone does "bash bootstrap", I'm not sure how to detect that in
> order to do it again in the exec.
Yep, sounds like a pro
written. If that's not the desired behavior,
then I'm not sure what the right behavior is, and that project can just
leave bootstrap_sync disabled.
>From 17fdf63c0175e872a6f5167c03bb2a0b0dfd0582 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joel E. Denny
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:19:59 -0
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:22:25PM CET:
> On 11/15/2010 11:06 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >What might work is have bootstrap exec a temporary script that updates
> >bootstrap then exec's that again.
>
> Something like this
>
> exec sh -c 'mv tmp-script this-script; exec sh
On 11/15/2010 11:06 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Exactly.
What might work is have bootstrap exec a temporary script that updates
bootstrap then exec's that again.
Something like this
exec sh -c 'mv tmp-script this-script; exec sh this-script "$@"' -- "$@"
?
Paolo
Hello,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 07:30:55PM CET:
>
> One problem I forsee is that, if the script is modified in place,
> the modification can occur while the shell is reading the script.
> So one must first create the desired script as a separate file,
> and then atomically rena
On 11/15/10 04:24, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I've done it before, but I don't know how general the method is:
> http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/self_modify.sh
One problem I forsee is that, if the script is modified in place,
the modification can occur while the shell is reading the script.
So one mu
On 15/11/10 07:03, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 03:22 PM, Joel E. Denny wrote:
>> To keep things simple, could we just extend the existing bootstrap script
>> so that, once it has fetched gnulib sources and before doing anything
>> else, it updates itself and re-exec's itself if there are a
On 11/14/2010 03:22 PM, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> To keep things simple, could we just extend the existing bootstrap script
> so that, once it has fetched gnulib sources and before doing anything
> else, it updates itself and re-exec's itself if there are any changes?
It sounds tricky to update a
Hi,
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > How about another idea: have a very simple bootstrap script. All it
> > does is fetch gnulib, and execute gnulib's more-complicated script.
After seeing a few more bootstrap patches go through, I'm motivated to
revisit this idea again.
To ke
Hi Gary,
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Before you put too much effort into patching the incumbent bootstrap script,
> please take a look at my complete rewrite.
I have no other plans.
> I'd be very happy for you to try it out, and let me know of your successes
> and issues in ad
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Paul Eggert wrote:
> How about another idea: have a very simple bootstrap script. All it
> does is fetch gnulib, and execute gnulib's more-complicated script.
We've started down that road before, but for a different initial reason.
The idea arises a few messages
On 19 Oct 2010, at 12:19, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 08:34 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> I would prefer your "boot" script to be called "bootstrap", and rename
>> the current "bootstrap" to something else, maybe "autoconfiscate"
>
> Yes, that would be even better. "autoconfiscate" is a bi
On 10/18/2010 08:34 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> I would prefer your "boot" script to be called "bootstrap", and rename
> the current "bootstrap" to something else, maybe "autoconfiscate"
Yes, that would be even better. "autoconfiscate" is a bit long, though.
How about "cobble" instead? "cobble
Hi Paul,
On 19 Oct 2010, at 04:56, Paul Eggert wrote:
> How about another idea: have a very simple bootstrap script. All it
> does is fetch gnulib, and execute gnulib's more-complicated script.
> We could call our new script "boot", say. If this idea works, we
> could copy "boot" to gnulib as we
On 10/17/10 14:34, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> We could just extend the error message to explain the intent. It could
> also explain that --no-bootstrap-sync is useful for trying out bootstrap
> modifications. For longer experiments, it could suggest setting
> bootstrap_sync=false in bootstrap.conf
Hi Paul,
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 09:27 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> > Now that Bison's bootstrap is in sync with gnulib's, I'd like to make sure
> > we keep it that way. This patch will help. Ok to push?
>
> I dunno, this sounds like it would discourage outsider
On 10/17/2010 09:27 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that Bison's bootstrap is in sync with gnulib's, I'd like to make sure
> we keep it that way. This patch will help. Ok to push?
I dunno, this sounds like it would discourage outsiders
from contributing to development. Surely there's a
[PATCH] bootstrap: add bootstrap_sync option.
* build-aux/bootstrap: Accept --bootstrap-sync to cause
bootstrap to fail if it is not identical to the local gnulib's
bootstrap. Accept bootstrap_sync=true in bootstrap.conf to
enable this by default. Accept --no-bootstrap-sync to dis
23 matches
Mail list logo
