On 07-10-2007 16:37:21 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
> >> 1) Limit tool options to those that are common to all tool variants
> >> 2) Port a standard (i.e. GNU) set of tools to all platforms
> >> 3) Force all gentoo ports to use GNU userland
...
> > No, it is not. The problem IMHO is in the "user" us
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Fabian has summed it up nicely, thanks. i could care less what your userland
> is outside of the ebuild environment since it doesnt matter to ebuild
> writers. you want a deficient runtime environment, more power to you, but
> forcing that environment onto ebuild develo
On Sunday 07 October 2007, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 07-10-2007 10:19:43 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
> > So there are a couple of options, as I see it:
> >
> > 1) Limit tool options to those that are common to all tool variants
> > 2) Port a standard (i.e. GNU) set of tools to all platforms
> > 3)
On Sunday 07 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 01:06 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > You can also do some pattern matching like so
> > >
> > > foo="foo foobar"
> > >
> > > [ "${foo%foobar}" = "${foo}" ] || echo "ends with foobar"
> > > [ "${foo#foobar}" = "${foo}" ] || ech
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 07-10-2007 10:19:43 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> So there are a couple of options, as I see it:
>>
>> 1) Limit tool options to those that are common to all tool variants
>> 2) Port a standard (i.e. GNU) set of tools to all platforms
>> 3) Force all gentoo ports to use GN
On 07-10-2007 10:19:43 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
> So there are a couple of options, as I see it:
>
> 1) Limit tool options to those that are common to all tool variants
> 2) Port a standard (i.e. GNU) set of tools to all platforms
> 3) Force all gentoo ports to use GNU userland
>
> I think we'd
On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 01:06 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > You can also do some pattern matching like so
> >
> > foo="foo foobar"
> >
> > [ "${foo%foobar}" = "${foo}" ] || echo "ends with foobar"
> > [ "${foo#foobar}" = "${foo}" ] || echo "starts with foo"
> > [ "${foo#* }" = "${foo}" ] || echo "
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> as mentioned, GNU is the main bread and butter of Gentoo. forcing the
> majority of people to go pure POSIX in the face of GNU extensions that make
> life easier is wrong. so the minority gets screwed, that's life. especially
> considering it's trivial for the minority
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Pattern matching can be done just as well with case. Infact, tend to
> > > use [[ == ]] a lot when pattern matching when a case statement would be
> > > more efficient and use less code
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. it
> > may be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be GNU
> > find so we can stop wasting time trying to figure out how to rewrite
>
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Pattern matching can be done just as well with case. Infact, tend to use
> > [[ == ]] a lot when pattern matching when a case statement would be more
> > efficient and use less code. Of course when you're just interested in
> > matching o
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. it
> > may
> > be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be GNU find so
> > we
> > can stop wasting time trying to figure ou
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they provide useful extensions. it may
> be worthwhile to force `find` in the portage environment to be GNU find so we
> can stop wasting time trying to figure out how to rewrite expressions in
> ebuilds (which can be done trivially w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Natanael Copa wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is a technical reason to avoid using bash.
>
> Ofcourse there is. See first issue mentioned in BUGS section in bash
> manpage.
>
Presumably these
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is
> > > this speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the
> > > time
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> I don't think there is a technical reason to avoid using bash.
Ofcourse there is. See first issue mentioned in BUGS section in bash
manpage.
-nc
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is
> > this speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the
> > time that it takes bash, but bash can do it in a 1 second, do we care ?
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is this
> speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the time that it
> takes bash, but bash can do it in a 1 second, do we care ? the majority of
> ebuilds are going to take magnitud
On 10/2/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > BSD is a second class citizen to GNU here. Gentoo started out as a project
> > targetting a GNU userland under Linux and will continue for quite sometime
> > (forever?) as the majority
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
> IFF your proposed changes lead to something that is simpler or as simple
> to write, faster or as fast to parse, easier or as easy to
> read/maintain; then you may have a solid stance. Otherwise it is a
> pointless annoyance for everybody, you first
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > BSD is a second class citizen to GNU here. Gentoo started out as a
> > project targetting a GNU userland under Linux and will continue for quite
> > sometime (forever?) as the majority/cor
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing the
> > standard from bash to POSIX is neither of these. i dont see that as a
> > flaw in my logic.
>
> Forcing? I'm not a
Roy Marples wrote:
> Well, let me be the first to stand for equal rights then!
Hm...
>
> I say that for the most part, there should be no technical reason why
> ebuilds cannot be in posix shell whilst being readable and maintainable.
Beside teaching us how to do that.
> If portage or another p
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> BSD is a second class citizen to GNU here. Gentoo started out as a project
> targetting a GNU userland under Linux and will continue for quite sometime
> (forever?) as the majority/core focus. forcing the project to limit itself
> when
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i am convinced by superior standards and by good things. forcing the
> standard
> from bash to POSIX is neither of these. i dont see that as a flaw in my
> logic.
Forcing? I'm not asking for anything to be forced, I'm asking for it to
On 02-10-2007 12:00:12 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> Infact, if we're not interested in portable code why bother with
> Gentoo/ALT in the first place?
Our code /IS/ portable, that's why you and me have a working Gentoo/Alt
system at the moment.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
--
[E
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny
> > > the ICC users the ability to compile it?
> >
> > that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a s
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > 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"
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:41 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 02-10-2007 11:09:21 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where
> > bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still.
>
> I prefer to define that ebuilds (and eclasses) ar
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny
> > the ICC users the ability to compile it?
>
> that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a stallman on us
> and force everyone to subscribe to your
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:10 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that
> > > monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones th
On 02-10-2007 11:09:21 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where
> bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still.
I prefer to define that ebuilds (and eclasses) are dealt by GNU bash,
which is installed as part of the installation
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:10 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that
> > monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones throat is
> > no better - it's just replacing one monocul
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My
> > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta
> > information interpretation definition.
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 05:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > The bonus is that it works on shells other than bash.
>
> which is irrelevant here
I think otherwise.
>
> > > I personally like consistency. So if we use bash in ebuilds, then I'd
> > > like to use bash in eclasses too. I'm intereste
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that
> monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones throat is
> no better - it's just replacing one monoculture with another one.
wrong. bash and GNU prevail because they
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My
> question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta
> information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X
> says their code should b
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> 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 reada
On 02-10-2007 10:37:25 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > "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.
>
> Just because it's open source does not mean that it won't tr
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:22 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> 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 s
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 20:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'd say that changing
> > things from doing a case match against proper character classes to doing
> > a printf against arbitrary character ranges (which btw are not locale
> > safe, so i
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' /b
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 porta
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 porta
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.
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 08:35 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> After a quick look I wonder how/if it deals with:
>
> 1.01 < 1.1
It treats them the same way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ bash -c '. /usr/portage/eclass/versionator.eclass;
version_compare 1.01 1.1; echo $?'
2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ bash -c '. ./
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 23:30 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Monday 01 October 2007 22:59:40 Roy Marples wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It should be
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 20:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> "better readability" is a pretty subjective claim ...
Many things are subjective - one mans good is another mans bad.
/me shrugs
> i'd say that changing
> things from doing a case match against proper character classes to doing a
> pri
On Monday 01 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Monday 01 October 2007 23:41:36 Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > I sure as hell am not going to proof read all that (mainly because I
> > think not using bash features in an environment where bash is required
> > is silly, instead of being an improvem
On Monday 01 October 2007 23:41:36 Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> I sure as hell am not going to proof read all that (mainly because I
> think not using bash features in an environment where bash is required
> is silly, instead of being an improvement)
OK. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the "in sh"
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:30:16PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Monday 01 October 2007 22:59:40 Roy Marples wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It sho
On Monday 01 October 2007 22:59:40 Roy Marples wrote:
> 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.
It should be noted that that first draft was developed on bash only.
Attached i
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.
It has not been tested in any ebuilds, but it does pass th
53 matches
Mail list logo
