fascistic commit r084e2284c700 busybox/scripts/gen_build_files.sh

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 19 May 2010 22:34:09 Peter Tyser wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > Maybe some other shells happen to allow read without arguments, but its
> > > a crapshoot as its not a standard.
> >
> > Which is why you say #!/bin/bash and then teach busybox's shells to
> > understand the name "bash".  The name is a promise of an API beyond
> > Posix.
>
> That's fine by me, adding optional support for bashisms to busybox's
> shells seems like a good idea.  However, how does that relate to the
> #!/bin/bash vs #!/bin/sh debate in build scripts we're having (or
> hopefully had?)?  I'd guess the vast majority of developers don't use
> busybox's shell when building busybox itself.

I do.  If the development environment you're creating isn't capable of self-
hosting, it's not finished.

I also use the distro's host environment, and I have yet to find a distro whose 
repo contains gcc but not bash.  In fact, I have yet to find a distro that 
doesn't install bash by default.  (Given that Ubuntu recently turned 
/usr/bin/gcc into a perl script, I wouldn't put any crazy stupid thing past 
them, but even they haven't done so yet.)

> Thus we are still left
> with the original debate of scripts using "bash+bashisms" or "sh
> +nobashisms".

Even crazy Ubuntu installs #!/bin/bash by default.  There has never been any 
plan on the part of Ubuntu to change this.  Linux has had bash installed by 
default since before it was called Linux.

> Or am I missing something?  I thought we had reached the
> consensus that we should strive to remove bashisms from the build
> scripts.  Is this still the case?

Given that I've argued consistently against that position during this entire 
discussion, I find your idea of "consensus" somewhat strange.

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds